u 



cj r 



VJ 













I 4 o 






1 ^o V '^ 














^^ 


















0'' ^. 







<. 












^.4 "• "v^^i^Mi::^' A. 





























r^ 



THE SOVEREIGNTY 
OF THE STATES 



THE SOVEREIGNTY 
OF THE STATES 

AN ORATION 

address to the survivors of the eighth 

virginia regiment, v^hile they v^ere 

gathered about the graves of 

their fallen comrades, on the 

battle-ground of manassas 

July 21, 1910 



BY 

WALTER NEALE 




New York and Washington 

THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY 

1910 









Copyright, 1910, By 
WALTER NEALE 



^CIA27347 



f.^O 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I. The American Kjn^gdoms 1 

(1578-1783) 

II. The American" Eepublics 73 

(1783-1865) 

III. The American" Absolute Mon^archy 116 
(1865-1910) 



PREFACE 

In these days orators refer to their "ad- 
dresses/' or they refer to their "speeches." 
Poets in these days speak of their "verses," 
or they speak of their " rhymes." Thus ora- 
tors and poets intend to be modest; thus they 
try to escape ridicule. The affairs of the 
world may not be conducted by a medium 
more effective than oratory, by which nations 
have been built, and by which right has ever 
been defended; man may not find expression 
by a medium nobler than poetry, which has 
ever been the greatest force in literature. 
Yet unthinking men in these days so ridicule 
orators and poets that the existence of ora- 
tory and poetry is threatened. The man who 
refers to his oration as an oration is no more 
immodest than the man who refers to his 
novel as a novel; the man who describes his 
poetry as poetry is no more immodest than 
the man who describes his song as music. 
In doing so neither asserts that his work 
equals the best of the masters of his art. 



Preface 

The fact that there are incompetent workers 
in oratory and in poetry, as in all the affairs 
of men, does not supply proper motive for the 
debasement of two noble arts. 

This account of the sovereignty of the states 
is an oration. So it is called. 

WALTER NEALE. 



THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE 
STATES 



THE AMEEICAN KINGDOMS 
FROM 1578 TO 1783 

Survivors of the Eighth Virginia Regiment, 
Prince William County Chapter of the 
United Daughters of the Confederacy, and 
all others that are here gathered on the 
hattle-ground of Manassas to honour those 
who fought to preserve the rights of the 
American nations: 

Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Eegiment, 
the war is not over, not yet may you unbuckle 
your armour: take up the arms that you laid 
down at Appomattox, then on to the front, for 
the hardest of the fighting is yet to be done. 

In 1861 the American nations submitted 
one question only to the arbitrament of arms. 
That question was answered in 1865, on the 



The Sovereignty of the States 



ninth day of April, the saddest day known 
to Virginians, when the court of last resort 
decided that no nation a party to the treaty 
of 1788 and its amendments should be per- 
mitted to withdraw from that compact; but 
that same court, the highest of tribunals, then 
decided that the rights of no nation should 
be otherwise affected. In construing the 
terms of the agreement in one respect only 
did opinions differ. 

As the victors fought for the perpetuation 
of the treaty, — in all its provisions, as in- 
terpreted by them, — the decision met with 
their entire approval. The defeated countries 
lost but one of their rights, while all their 
other rights were to be theirs for ever. Each 
fought that her sovereignty might be hers 
for ever, and each was assured that never 
should her sovereignty be placed in jeopardy. 
Thus the defeated countries were victorious 
in defeat. 

But, Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Regi- 
ment, the decision of the court of last resort 
has been disregarded by the victors. They 
have violated the terms of surrender by 
which you were induced to lay down your 
arms, for one by one the rights of the de- 



The Sovereignty of the States 3 

feated nations have been taken from them. 
The terms of surrender signed, sealed, and 
delivered, the defeated peoples hoped that 
they would be permitted to exercise at least 
a few of the powers of sovereignty. 

A vain hope! The War of Keconstruction, 
the most horrible of all modem wars, was 
forced upon them by their victors. They were 
to pay billions as indemnity under an in- 
famous pension law; they were to pay bil- 
lions as an indemnity under an iniquitous 
tariff. They were to see a vast republic 
made of the American nations; they were to 
see that republic enter upon wars of conquest 
in distant lands. They were to see Cleveland 
tear down the flag that had been raised in 
dishonour; they were to see McKinley as- 
sassinate the treaty that he had fought to per- 
petuate. Yes, they were to see McKinley as- 
sassinate the treaty that he had fought to per- 
petuate, for they were to see him replace 
the flag that Cleveland had torn down, his 
face livid with shame the while. They were to 
see shrieking mobs, drunk with imperial 
power, — tasted for the first time, — gather 
about the flag that dishonoured the heavens, 
while above the uproar they were to hear the 



4 The Sovereignty of the States 

more coherent among the rabble shout : " Let 
the flag stay put! Get out, you little Amer- 
icans! the flag once planted shall wave for 
ever ! " They were to hear a trumpet sound- 
ing throughout the world: "Awake, nations 
of the earth, the peoples of sovereign powers 
have become the American people!" They 
were to see the vast American republic evolve 
into a powerful empire, with a president for 
king; they were to see that empire become a 
despotic monarchy. They were to see the 
highest court of the communities that once 
were nations become the lowest court of the 
new monarchy; they were to see the members 
of the highest court of the new monarchy 
become the minions of the despot. They 
were to see American legislators the despot's 
lackeys. They were to see the communities 
that had been sovereignties with no right 
save the rights that the despot was pleased 
to grant them from time to time. They were 
to see the American despot become more 
powerful than the Eussian czar. 

The ruler that is now on the American 
throne — the second that Ohio has supplied 
to the American monarchy within a single 
decade — intends to tax directly the persons 



The Sovereignty of the States 5 

that live in the communities that once were 
nations. More than half the members of the 
despot's highest court rebel, refusing to per- 
mit him directly to tax his subjects; so the 
despot intends to pacify the rebels by going 
through the form of adding a section to the 
compact of confederation that! is still sup- 
posed to bind the communities that were once 
sovereignties. The despot is to be permitted 
directly to tax the income of his people. 

If there be a single defect in this vast mon- 
archy, it is the veneration in which many of 
the people still hold the old treaty of 1788 
and its amendments. Once let that document 
give the American despot the moral right to 
tax his subjects, and Anglo-Saxon civilisa- 
tion in America shall be no more. Almighty 
God, forbid! 

Virginians, since the nations thati you 
fought have violated the agreement under 
which you laid down your arms, I implore 
you, — I command you, — take up your arms, 
and let every man of this old commonwealth 
be gathered to his fathers rather than die a 
slave. 

• • • • • 

Let us briefly review the lives of the Amer- 



6 The Sovereignty of the States 

ican nations that became parties to the treaty 
of 1788 and its amendments. The fault will 
be mine if I do not show that each was a 
sovereignty from 1578, when Elizabeth is- 
sued a patent to Gilbert, until 1865, when 
eleven failed to maintain their rights. As 
the powers of the American nations did not 
differ essentially between 1578 and 1865, the 
greater part of our review will be devoted to 
Virginia, that time may be saved. 

GENESIS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONS 

During the reign of Edward III England 
was devastated by the worst disease known 
to man. Large tracts of her territory were 
left uninhabited, and not until the greater 
part of her people were in their graves — 
or their bones were bleaching on her high- 
ways — had the disease run its course. But 
the black death was not an unmixed evil. 
Never able to supply food to a large popula- 
tion, England could not at that time feed her 
five million inhabitants. A large part of her 
people faced starvation when death came to 
them in a more hideous guise. 

The loss in population having been regained 



The Sovereignty of the States 7 

during Elizabetli's reign, once more famine 
threatened the people, who could find no re- 
lief within the boundaries of the realm. For 
want of work tens of thousands were idle. 
Occupation had to be found for the unem- 
ployed, or a dynasty would fall; nor should 
England become a power of first rank until 
she should find an abundance of food. Al- 
ready her wise men were saying that she 
should soon be seized by the Spaniards. With- 
out bread the English people could not live. 
So the petition of the brave adventurer, 
Sir Humphrey Gilbert, that a patent be is- 
sued to him for land beyond the seas, was 
heard by sympathetic ears. As Elizabeth 
saw, here was an opportunity to establish a 
nation of her own blood and bone, which 
would take from England her surplus popu- 
lation, supply her with food, and constitute 
a market for her merchandise. Moreover, al- 
ready England saw that her sovereignty was 
in the keeping of her navy, and she also saw 
that her navy would be ineffective without 
stations in various parts of the world. Thus 
her existence was dependent upon her com- 
merce, her commerce was dependent upon her 
navy, and her navy was dependent upon 



8 The Sovereignty of the States 

friendly distant lands. In 1578 Sir Hum- 
phrey Gilbert, his patent in his pocket, sailed 
from England, intending to found a nation 
in the American wilds. 

Elizabeth and her advisers knew that Eng- 
land could goyern no distant people. At best 
she could bind them to her by the golden 
chains of love ; nor have any chains other than 
love ever bound the English peoples to one 
another and to the mother country. No 
other chains have ever bound two peoples — 
or more — of an ancestor common to them, 
when separated by water, nor ever will. 
Those golden chains have ever been the 
strength of England. To-day the great sys- 
tem of nations that comprise all^ the peo- 
ples that speak the English language are 
bound by the same chains. There are nations 
now that would do well to imitate the wis- 
dom of England as expressed by her more 
than three hundred years ago, when she 
granted to her people the right to found na- 
tions in the American forests. 

One of Humphrey Gilbert's seven ships was 
commanded by his half-brother, Walter Ral- 
eigh, then a youth of twenty-six. The fleet 
fought the Spaniards on the high seas, and 



The Sovereignty of the States 9 

probably suffered severely, for the expedition 
went back to England. In 1583 the daunt- 
less Gilbert again set sail, and again his at- 
tempt to reach America failed, this time ow- 
ing to a violent storm, which sent the com- 
mander to the bottom of the sea. The gal- 
lant Ealeigh, who had been too much engaged 
in paying court to his beautiful sovereign to 
accompany the second expedition, proved to 
be his half-brother's worthy successor. In 
1584 the patent that had been granted to Gil- 
bert was renewed in the younger man's name. 
However, a permanent settlement was not es- 
tablished until May 13, 1607, when the tra- 
vail that began when Elizabeth handed Gil- 
bert's patent to him in 1587 was ended — the 
nation Virginia was bom, 

FROM 1578 TO 1609 

Under a provision of Gilbert's patent, re- 
newed by Elizabeth in 1584, Ealeigh acquired 
the right to " hold by homage remote heathen 
and barbarous lands, not actually possessed 
by any Christian prince, nor inhabited by 
Christian people, which he might discover 
within the next six years." The patent also 



10 The Sovereignty of the States 

provided that the people of each of the new 
lands "should have all the privileges of free 
denizens and persons native of England, in 
such ample manner as if they were born and 
personally resident in our said realm of Eng- 
land/' and still further the patent provided 
that the peoples should have the right to 
govern themselves so long as their laws should 
"conform as nearly as conveniently may be 
with those of England, and do not oppugn 
the Christian faith, or anyway withdraw the 
people of those lands from our allegiance." 
Says John Fiske, a more unequivocal ac- 
knowledgment of the rights of self-govern- 
ment would be hard to find/ 

While the patent provided that the head of 
the British nation also should be the head of 
each of the American nations, the sovereignty 
of none was affected by that provision. Two 
countries or more may acknowledge a king 
common to them all, yet each be a sovereign 
entity. For example, if China, Germany, 
and Kussia each was to call an American to 
her throne, that course would not effect the 
amalgamation of those nations, nor would 

1 John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighlours, in 2 
vols., vol. i, p. 31. 



The Sovereignty of the States 11 

they become thereby colonies of the American 
monarchy; but each would be governed by 
her own laws, which would be executed by a 
king of her own selection, hence she would 
continue to be a nation. While the civilised 
countries of the world owe allegiance to Al- 
mighty God, and to some extent are governed 
by His laws, the sovereignty of none is 
thereby affected. Although the head of Vir- 
ginia's government was to live in London, 
nevertheless she was to be her sovereign self, 
with all departments of her government ad- 
ministered by persons of her blood and 
bone. 

A nation consists of persons that are or- 
ganised under one civil government. Ordi- 
narily a nation is the sole occupant of a ter- 
ritory within definite bounds, but not always, 
for several nations may inhabit land that is 
common to them all. In America, for exam- 
ple, the Caucasian nations and the Indian 
nations formerly occupied land that was 
common to them. If sovereignty be power 
to exercise supreme authority, no nation has 
ever been sovereign, for the nations of the 
world, constituting one great human family, 
compel one another to observe laws for the 



12 The Sovereignty of the States 

common good. No nation even has had a 
government with power to exercise unre- 
strained authority over her own people. 

Unless the definition of "nation" and the 
definition of " sovereignty " are borne in mind 
constantly, often we shall be confused during 
the course of this oration. 

In 1603 James I ascended the English 
throne, sent the noble Kaleigh to prison, took 
his patent away from him, then put it into 
the kingly pocket. 

The charter under which Virginia became 
a nation, issued by James I, divided Eng- 
land's American dominion into two parts. 
The territory lying between the thirty-fourth 
and the forty-first parallels — that is, between 
the present capital of South Carolina and the 
present capital of New Jersey — was to be oc- 
cupied by a commercial organisation, while 
another commercial organisation was to oc- 
cupy the dominion lying between the thirty- 
eighth and the forty-fifth parallels — that is, 
between the Potomac river and the St. Law- 
rence river, not to be exact. Thus the wily 
James issued patents to a part of his domin- 
ion to more than one political body — for the 
commercial companies really were political 



The Sovereignty of the States 13 

bodies. In time this territory was divided 
into several parts, then sold by the king. 

So far as the sovereignty of each of the 
American nations was concerned, the charter 
under which the first permanent settlement 
was established did not differ materially from 
the patent that Elizabeth had issued. While 
a royal council consisting of thirteen persons, 
to be appointed by the king, was to advise 
them, each nation was to govern herself. 
They were each to be governed by a council, 
to consist of thirteen persons, one of the mem- 
bers to be president, who was to have a cast- 
ing vote, and who was to be elected each year 
by the council. Among the duties of the 
council was to fill its own vacancies, dismiss 
the president from his office in case of mis- 
conduct, and to deport undesirable foreigners. 

Each of the American nations was to be as 
sovereign as the mother from whose womb 
she was to leap. Fiske says that the au- 
thority of the councils was supreme, although 
their acts were liable to a veto from the king. 
As we shall see, the king, as the head of each 
American government, could exercise the 
powers of his office without affecting in the 
least the sovereignty of the American peoples. 



14 The Sovereignty of the States 

Virginia was entirely satisfied with lier 
form of government and the way that it was 
administered. She proceeded to coin money, 
punish offenders, raise revenue by taxation, 
and to regulate her trade with foreign na- 
tions. That she might defend her people she 
organised an army of her own citizens, com- 
manded by officers of her own selection, and 
her people were further defended by a navy 
of her own construction, manned by her own 
citizens. 

A nation is never made of a piece of parch- 
ment. Although the American nations were 
sovereign when their lands were first settled, 
the sovereignty of each had to be maintained 
by sweat and by blood. Within forty years 
from the time that James I ascended the 
throne the American nations were prepared 
to defend their sovereignty against the world. 
Time and again each had fought for her life, 
and always her armies had been victorious. 
By sweat and by blood the American nations 
within forty years from the time they were 
first permanently settled had earned for them- 
selves high places among the sovereignties of 
the world. 

During the early years of the seventeenth 



The Sovereignty of the States 15 

century no nation could have waged war suc- 
cessfully three thousand miles from home. 
Suppose that a power beyond the seas, brav- 
ing the dangers of a vast unknown continent 
inhabited by hostile Indians, defended by a 
government with a trained military force, had 
successfully invaded Virginia, could the in- 
vader have long enjoyed the fruit of her vic- 
tory? Not so. 

As a nation is sovereign so long as she ex- 
ercises the powers of sovereignty, one may not 
say that Virginia was not sovereign because 
she might have been taken by some European 
state. To argue to the contrary would be to 
contend that no nation is sovereign, inas- 
much as no nation exists that may not be 
overcome by some adversary, nor has any na- 
tion ever existed that might not have fallen 
under the assault of the combined nations of 
the earth. Switzerland is a sovereign state, 
although she might be held in Russia's right 
hand. Virginia was not successfully invaded, 
nor was her national existence affected for a 
moment; so we may not say that she might 
have lost her sovereignty through invasion. 



16 The Sovereignty of the States 

FROM 1609 TO 1624 

On May 23, 1609, a new charter was 
granted to the London company. In annul- 
ling the old charter James I declared that, 
while the first commercial company had been 
deprived of its privileges, the sovereignty of 
Virginia was unimpaired, and he further de- 
clared that the new charter did not deprive 
Virginia of any of her territory. Similar 
declarations were made by Charles I. To en- 
ter into a detailed account of the government 
under the new charter is not necessary in this 
oration, so I merely say that Virginia con- 
tinued her sovereign existence, fighting out 
her national destiny with axe and hoe and 
sword. By 1612, the year that the London 
company obtained its third charter, Virginia 
had taken off her swaddling clothes. 

Under the new charter the government ex- 
panded. The House of Burgesses assembled 
July 30, 1619, obedient to the writs of elec- 
tion that Governor Yeardley had issued. 
Eleven election districts were represented, 
each by two delegates. The first parliament 
to assemble in America thereafter convened 
at stated intervals until 1776, a year after the 



The Sovereignty of the States 17 

fight at Lexington. So early as 1624 the as- 
sembly declared that the governor, the repre- 
sentative of Virginia's king, the king of her 
choice, should not tax the people against the 
will of the Burgesses, the representatives 
chosen by the people to make their laws. 

Says Major Steele, referring to the Ameri- 
can kingdoms: ^^ About the only real bond 
that tied them to the authority of England 
was the colonial governors, but they were de- 
pendent upon the behest of the colonial legis- 
latures for their pay; so their vetoes were 
easily bought off. Of a truth, the provincial 
legislatures brought the governors to terms, 
by refusing to vote their salaries."^ 

Continuing, Major Steele in the next para- 
graph says : " There were customs laws and 
various other laws for taxing the colonists; 
but all of them were ignored." 

In 1622 the population of Virginia was 
fully 4,000, while her people were wealthy. 
By that time several of the mansions for 
which Virginia is famous had been erected, 
and the homes of many of the workmen were 
so substantial that a few of them are still to 

2 Matthew Forney Steele, American Campaigns, 2 vols., 
Washington, War Department, Office of the Chief of Staff, 
Document No. 324, vol. i, p. 21. 



18 The Sovereignty of the States 

be found in a state of excellent preservation. 
All the people enjoyed an abundance, all were 
happy, all worked hard, all enjoyed liberty 
in full measure — ^the liberty that is not 
license. 

FROM 1624 TO 1776 

The downfall of the London company was 
brought about by James I in 1624. Although 
the assembly that had been elected by the 
people and the governor and the council that 
had been appointed by the throne were en- 
tirely satisfied with the relations existing be- 
tween the Virginian government and the 
British government, and frequently had given 
expression to that satisfaction, and more 
than once had said that the company ably 
represented Virginia's king, nevertheless his 
majesty decided to withdraw the authority 
that he had delegated to the company, and 
soon wielded his kingly power over all the 
subjects of his American realm. He person- 
ally appointed Virginia's governor and the 
members of her upper house, known as a 
council; then warned his British parliament 
and his British privy council that the affairs 
of his American kingdoms were no part of 



The Sovereignty of the States 19 

their proper concern, that he did not need 
their assistance in exercising his duties as 
king of his realms beyond the seas. He 
broadly hinted that the commercial body 
should no longer exist. 

The company contended that James had 
no power by which he could annul the char- 
ter, which had become a valuable vested right. 
The argument of the attorney-general in the 
quo warranto proceeding that was brought 
before the Court of Kings Bench was worthy 
of his profession. The charter, he said, per- 
mitted the company to carry the king's sub- 
jects across the seas to Virginia; therefore, 
if the company should convey all Englishmen 
to America, the king would be left without 
subjects in his British kingdom. The court 
was convinced; the charter was annulled. 

The sovereignty of the American nation 
had not even been placed in jeopardy by the 
downfall of the company, and "self-govern- 
ment in Virginia," says Fiske, "went on to 
take root more deeply and strongly than be- 
fore.''^ 

VIRIGINIA'S GROWTH NOW RAPID 

The growth of Virginia was rapid. Courts 

3 Fiske, vol. i, p. 222. 



20 The Sovereignty of the States 

that held sessions monthly were established, 
and soon a great judiciary system was per- 
fected; the nation was divided into military 
districts, with every able-bodied man a trained 
soldier, his arms always within his reach; 
all industries necessary to Virginia's exis- 
tence as a sovereignty were developed, while 
a single agricultural product, tobacco, alone 
was sufficient to make her people the wealth- 
iest of the world; her ships, which also con- 
stituted a powerful navy able to protect her 
commerce, — for every ship was heavily 
armed, — carried her products to all parts of 
the world, while her policy of free trade, 
which is still her policy, added to her wealth 
as well as to her honour. Her planters be- 
came kings, her merchants became princes, 
and her labourers became barons. Although 
a banking system did not exist in Virginia 
until 1804, her fiscal systems were as nearly 
perfect as those of any other nation. 

A table that shows Virginia's money in 
present American values, compiled by a Vir- 
ginian writer,* is so important in a consider- 
ation of the sovereignty of the states, that I 
now repeat it: 

* J. W. Eggleston, TucTcahoe, p. ix. 



The Sovereignty of the States 21 

Fourpence-half-penny or "fe'-pence-a'-penny" $ .06J 

Ninepence 12^ 

Shilling 16| 

Eighteenpence 25 

Two-an' threp-pence (threepence) 37^ 

Three-an'-ninepence 62| 

Four-an'-sixpence 75 

Seven-an'-sixpence 1.25 

Nine shillings 1.50 



While there was no Virginian pound, the 
term nevertheless was often used. Mr. Eg- 
gleston errs when he says that the only in- 
stance in which reference was made to the 
pound was in 1850, when the code of Virginia 
provided that the governor's salary be 1,000 
pounds, the governor drawing in satisfaction 
of his salary 3,333 American dollars and 33 
American cents. The term pound was used 
oftener than the term dollar until long after 
Virginia ceased to be a kingdom, while often 
at this day one may hear a Virginian say, 
" Not a pound will I give you for that beast." 

Nor werel the fine arts neglected, nor 
science. So early as 1621 provision was 
made for a great public free school sys- 
tem, — the foundation of the system that 
Jefferson perfected, — and about the same 
time various subscriptions were made to 
a fund that was to be used in establish- 



22 The Sovereignty of the States 

ing a great national university. The College 
of William and Mary, erected in 1692, the 
result of the movement that began in 1621, 
may be ranked among the great educational 
institutions of the world. Again Fiske em- 
phasises Virginia's sovereignty, saying that 
she had managed " her own affairs in almost 
entire independence of the British govern- 
ment" for more than fifty years. Continu- 
ing, he says: "As the situation was left by 
the death of James, so it remained without 
essential change until 1776. The House of 
Burgesses was undisturbed, but the governor 
and council were henceforth appointed by 
the crown. . . . The change from govern- 
ors appointed by the company to governors 
appointed by the crown was a relaxation of 
the supervision which England exercised over 
Virginia. For the company could devote all 
its attention to the affairs of the colony, but 
the crown could not. Especially in such 
reigns as those of the two Charleses, the at- 
tention of the crown was too much absorbed 
with affairs in Great Britain to allow it to 
interfere decisively with the course of events 
in Virginia. The colony was thus in the main 
thrown back upon its own resources, and such 



The Sovereignty of the States 23 

a state of things was most favourable to its 
wholesome development." ^ 

Fiske would not have been confused had he 
known that Great Britain and Virginia were 
nations independent of each other, acknowl- 
edging allegiance to a sovereign common to 
them both. Of course the king exercised his 
authority through the governors that he ap- 
pointed. They were not the emissaries of a 
foreign potentate, but officers of a sovereign 
of Virginia's own selection. Nor was Vir- 
ginia's king the British government — not by 
several games of cricket. 

By 1649 Virginia's population had increased 
to 15,000 Caucasians and 300 negroes. Charles 
I was put to death during this year. The 
event aroused the subjects of his American 
kingdom to great indignation. However, his 
death did not affect the sovereignty of the 
American nations in the least ; but, as we shall 
see, Virginia exercised a power of sovereignty 
during the Commonwealth period among the 
highest that a nation may exercise. 

Virginia's population and her wealth con- 
tinued to increase. In 1670, several years 
after the fall of the Commonwealth, while 

5 Fiske, vol. i, pp. 238-239. 



24 The Sovereignty of the States 

Charles II was on the Virginian throne, her 
population had increased to 38,000 Cau- 
casians and 2,000 negroes. The authority of 
the king, defied for several months during 
1676, — while a government republican in form 
was maintained by the first American rebel — 
was reestablished by the Virginian people, 
who overthrew Bacon's government without 
the aid of any other people. National devel- 
opment continued with great rapidity. 

In 1750 Virginia's population, as estimated 
by Smyth, consisted of 250,000 Caucasians 
and 250,000 negroes.^ So Virginia then was 
indeed among the powerful nations of the 
world. 

According to the first federal census (1790), 
Virginia's population consisted of 454,183 
Caucasians and 293,427 negroes; or, exclusive 
of Indians, her total population was 747,610. 
After consulting several authorities, I esti- 
mate that in 1776, twenty-six years after 
Smyth made his estimate, and fourteen years 
before the first federal census was taken, the 
population consisted of about 420,000 Cau- 
casians and about 250,000 negroes. In view 

6 Smyth, Tours in the United States, London, 1784, vol. 
i, p. 72, quoted by Fiske, vol. 2, p. 191. 



The Sovereignty of the States 25 

of the first census, evidently Smyth's estimate 
of the negro population was too high, while 
probably his estimate of the white population 
was too low. Few persons settled in America 
between 1776 and 1790, and few negroes were 
brought to any part of the continent during 
those years. 

During this period of Virginia's growth, all 
the American nations fared well so far as 
their sovereignty was concerned. Several be- 
sides Virginia at 'this time were powerful 
countries. For example, in 1790 the popula- 
tion of Massachusetts, one of the small na- 
tions, was 387,787, exclusive of Indians, but 
including slaves. 



THE POWHATAN WAR 

The highest power of sovereignty that a 
nation may exercise is the ability successfully 
to wage war. Not only did Virginia unas- 
sisted fight out several wars between 1607 
and 1865, in which she was victorious, but she 
also dictated the terms of peace. During this 
period she fought foreign countries, European 
as well as American, and Indian nations oc- 
cupying her own territory. More than once 



26 The Sovereignty of the States 

she engaged in civil strife. As a world power, 
acting within her own sovereign rights, she 
entered into treaties with other great world 
powers, including the united kingdoms, for 
when she made a treaty with Cromwell's gov- 
ernment the articles were signed by Grom- 
welFs commissioners on behalf of England 
and by Virginia's council on behalf of Vir- 
ginia, " as equal treating equal," an assertion 
of sovereignty that Great Britain did not dis- 
pute. 

To review all Virginia's wars is not nec- 
essary in this oration, but I shall refer to 
several. 

In 1622 the Powhatan nation made war 
upon Virginia. So severe was the fighting 
that she lost about nine per cent, of her popu- 
lation. However, three Powhatans probably 
gave their lives in payment of every life that 
they took. The terms of peace were dictated 
by Virginia, and a treaty was made between 
the two nations. 

THE WAR BETWEEN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA 

The king did not always keep his word. 
That part of Virginia's territory now known 



The Sovereignty of the States 27 

as Maryland became an independent nation 
through the treachery of a king who was not 
always just while governing several nations at 
the same time. Many rulers have found it 
difficult to govern one nation, so we should 
forgive the mistakes made by Virginia's liege 
lord, I suppose. A state of war soon existed. 
Maryland having taken possession of Kent 
Island, a part of Virginia's territory, and in- 
habited by her citizens, William Claiborne, 
the Virginian secretary of state, in 1633 de- 
manded of Maryland's sovereign, who was also 
the British king, that he take his Maryland 
subjects from Virginia's territory. Where- 
upon the king commanded Lord Baltimore to 
withdraw from Kent Island. The command 
was not obeyed. 

I have intimated that John Fiske did not 
know that Virginia was a kingdom independ- 
ent of all other nations, governed by a sover- 
eign of her own selection. In justice to New 
England's historian, who possibly did try to 
tell the story of Virginia's people, I now 
quote from his account of the war between 
Virginia and Maryland: 

" So the winter wore away without incident, 
but early in April, 1635, one of Claiborne's 



28 The Sovereignty of the States 

ships, commanded by one Thomas Smith, was 
seized in the Patuxent Eiver by Captain 
Fleete; she was condemned for trading with- 
out a license, and was confiscated and sold 
with all her cargo. Claiborne then sent out 
an armed sloop, the Cockatrice^ to make re- 
prisals upon Maryland shipping; but Calvert 
was wide awake and sent Cornwallis with a 
stronger force of two armed pinnaces, which 
overtook the Cockatrice in Pocomoke River 
and captured her after a brisk skirmish in 
which half a dozen men were killed and more 
wounded. That was on April 23, and on May 
10 there was another fight in the harbour of 
Great Wighcocomoco, at the mouth of the 
Pocomoke, in wbich Thomas Smith com- 
manded for Claiborne and defeated the Mary- 
landers with more bloodshed."^ 

In the next paragraph Fiske tells us that 
in "the midst of these unseemly quarrels the 
kingdom of Virginia witnessed something like 
a revolution," meaning a civil war. Did 
Fiske see the light for a while? "The king- 
dom of Virginia witnessed something like a 
revolution.'' For a while New England did 
not occupy all John Fiske. 

7 Fiske, vol. i, p. 293. 



The Sovereignty of the States 29 

Later Virginia entered into an alliance with 
Maryland in order to wage a common war 
against the Indians along the Potomac. 

All the American sovereignties waged wars 
against foreign nations. Those wars need not 
be considered here. But we should bear in 
mind that each nation maintained her exist- 
ence as a sovereign entity. 

THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR 

As I have said, the American nations fre- 
quently combined in order to wage war 
against sovereign powers. They frequently 
assisted the king who was common to them 
all in the wars in which one of his peoples or 
more were engaged. When these wars were 
fought on American soil the American na- 
tions received but little assistance from the 
English people. I shall not go into the de- 
tails of King William's War, which was ended 
in 1697; nor Queen Anne's War, in which 
large armies were engaged, a single army of 
allies numbering 7,000 soldiers and 800 ma- 
rines,^ and which was closed by the Treaty of 
Utrecht, in 1713; nor King George's War, 

8 Steele, vol. i, p. 3. 



30 The Sovereignty of the States 

which was ended in 1748 by the treaty of Aix- 
la-Chapelle; but I shall ask you to consider a 
few features of the French and Indian War, 
which really began in 1753, when Governor 
Dinwiddle sent Major Washington to Vir- 
ginia's frontier bearing a message to the 
French commander, in which he was told to 
leave Virginian soil, and which ended, we 
may say, when the Treaty of Paris was signed 
in 1763. In this war the British troops un- 
der Braddock were cut to pieces, his army 
was annihilated, and probably no British sol- 
dier of his command would have lived to see 
England again had not Washington and a 
few Virginian troops taken part in the battle. 
England and France formally declared war 
against each other in 1756. This war did not 
meet with the full approval of Virginians, al- 
though they were at war with the French and 
the Indians themselves; nor was it approved 
by all the citizens of the other American na- 
tions. When the British government asked 
the American peoples for large armies, only 
4,000 men took up their arms. However, 
later, in 1758, says Major Steele, " Pitt asked 
for 20,000, and they responded with alacrity.'' 
In the same paragraph he goes on to say that 



The Sovereignty of the States 31 

in June "Abercrombie bad an army of more 
tban 15,000 men, over 6,000 of wbom were 
Britisb regulars, encamped about tbe ruins 
of Fort William Henry, at tbe bead of Lake 
George. Tbis was tbe largest body of troops 
tbat bad ever been assembled on tbe American 
continent." ^ Tbus we find tbat mucb less 
tban balf tbe men were Britisb, in tbe largest 
army tbat ever assembled on tbe American 
continent until a few years after tbe middle 
of tbe eigbteentb century. At tbat time Vir- 
ginia could bave put 50,000 wbite men into 
tbe field, inasmucb as an army of tbat size 
would bave been merely one-fiftb of ber wbite 
population. 

bacon's rebellion 

Tbe sovereignty of a nation is not affected 
by ber civil wars so long as all otber nations 
are neutral. Wbile civil strife may overtbrow 
a dynasty, to be replaced by anotber dynasty, 
or may alter tbe form of tbe government, — 
tbe nation becoming a republic instead of a 
monarcby, for example, — sucb cbanges in 
tbemselves do not affect tbe nation's sover- 

9 Steele, vol. i, p. 12. 



32 The Sovereignty of the States 

eignty. Later on I shall have occasion to re- 
mind you of this statement of fact. 

Virginia's great civil war of the seventeenth 
century, which was fought in 1676, just one 
hundred years before the Declaration of In- 
dependence was signed, was the first attempt 
to make a republic out of any one of the Amer- 
ican kingdoms. I shall not review the strife 
known as Bacon's Kebellion in many of its de- 
tails. It was fought by Virginians unaided 
by any foreign power. The political events 
that caused Bacon and his followers to over- 
throw the authority of their king need not be 
discussed here, but I shall say that there is 
no more interesting study in American his- 
tory than Bacon's Eebellion; and no more 
picturesque person than Nathaniel Bacon 
has ever lived upon this continent, I safely 
add. A leader of men, a military genius, re- 
sourceful as few men have been resourceful, 
he deserves a place in the front rank of great 
Virginians. His war was not waged against 
Virginia's sovereignty; he fought for human 
freedom — for the rights of men as men, as he 
saw those rights. Indeed, were I asked to 
name three men of Virginia that tower above 
all Virginians other than themselves, I should 



The Sovereignty of the States 33 

name them in chronological order — John 
Smith, Nathaniel Bacon, and Robert Edward 
Lee. 

Bacon's Rebellion did not originate in quar- 
rels among communities. Later on I shall re- 
fer to the rise of sectionalism in Virginia. 
Now I pause but to say that probably the 
first element that is developed in the charac- 
ter of a nation is provincialism — the entire 
nation by the world said to be provincial. 
There is but a step between provincialism and 
sectionalism, for sectionalism is merely pro- 
vincialism divided, the home rule of provin- 
cialism, as it were. The strength of a nation 
is sectionalism. Civil wars may result, but 
the power of the political body is increased, 
while the life of the people undoubtedly is 
made more interesting. While Bacon's Re- 
bellion did not originate in sectionalism, 
nevertheless there were sections in Virginia 
so early as 1624. Even then there was an 
eastern Virginia and a western Virginia. 

Governor Berkeley, the king's representa- 
tive, found that he was not strong enough to 
oppose Bacon, so he fled to the Eastern Shore. 
Bacon marched his army to Middle Planta- 
tion, which later became Williamsburg, the 



34 The Sovereignty of the States 

capital of the nation, and there he was lord 
of all Virginia, save the Eastern Shore, a part 
of the commonwealth that remained faithful 
to the king. Mrs. Stanard, of Kichmond, has 
closely studied the history of Virginia under 
Bacon's republic, and the result of her study 
is a valuable book. In this volume we are 
told that before the rebel left Middle Planta- 
tion to fight the Indians he issued a summons 
in the name of the king, which paper, signed 
by four members of the council, commanded 
the assembly to convene September 4, 1676, 
that the affairs of the colony might be man- 
aged until the commander should return. Al- 
ready his followers had pledged themselves 
in writing to resist any force that might be 
sent by England against him. 

"Upon the seventh of September Berkeley 
set sail for Jamestown, not as a prisoner, but 
with a fleet consisting of the recaptured ship 
and some sixteen or seventeen sloops manned 
by six hundred sturdy denizens of Accomac, 
whom he is said to have bribed to his service 
with promises of plunder of all who had taken 
Bacon's oath, — * catch that catch could,' — 
twenty-one years' exemption from all taxes 
except church dues, and regular pay of twelve- 



The Sovereignty of the States 35 

pence per day so long as they should serve 
under his colours." ^^ 

One historian asserts that Berkeley's force 
was one thousand when he sailed from the 
Eastern Shore.^^ 

The engineering operations of both armies 
were quite extensive. A fierce battle was 
fought between Bacon and Berkeley, which 
forced the governor to return to his strong- 
hold. But the war was not over, as the young 
rebel probably knew. 

" His plans were now suddenly interrupted 
by a report from Rappahannock County that 
Colonel Brent, who, it seems, had gone over 
to the Governor's side, was advancing upon 
him at the head of eleven hundred militia. 
No sooner had he heard this news than he 
ordered the drums to beat up his soldiers, un- 
der their colors, and told them of the strength 
of the approaching army, and of Brent's 
^ resolution ' to fight him, and ' demanded 
theirs.' 

"With their wonted heartiness, his men 
made answer in ' shouts and acclamations, 
while the drums thundered a march to meet 
the promised conflict.' 

10 Mary Newton Stanard, The Story of Bacon's Rebel- 
lion, p. 111. iiFiske, vol. ii, p. 87. 



36 The Sovereignty of the States 

"Thus encouraged, Bacon set out without 
delay to give the enemy even an earlier chance 
to unload his guns than he had bargained for. 
He had been on the march for several days 
when, instead of meeting a hostile army, he 
was greeted with the cheerful tidings that 
Brent's followers, who were described as 
^ men, not soldiers,' had left their commander 
to ' shift for himself.' They had heard how 
the Rebel had beat the Governor out of town, 
and lest he should * beat them out of their 
lives,' some of them determined to keep a safe 
distance from him, while most of them un- 
blushingly deserted him, deeming it the part 
of wisdom ' with the Persians, to go and wor- 
ship the rising sun.' " ^^ 

Not long after these events Bacon died of 
malaria, which he contracted while he was 
about Jamestown. Other civil wars that were 
fought in Virginia need not be mentioned here. 



VIRGINIA'S SOVEREIGNTY CONCEDED 

That Virginia was a sovereignty from 1578 
until 1783 was held by many eminent persons 
during all those years. 

12 standard, pp. 135-136. 



The Sovereignty of the States 37 

In his dedication of Faerie Queene, written 
during Elizabeth's time, Edmund Spenser re- 
fers to his lovely sovereign as the queen of 
England, France, and Ireland, and of Vir- 
ginia. He undoubtedly considered ea'ch of 
those countries to be kingdoms. 

Charles I made William Claiborne secre- 
tary of state in " our kingdom of Virginia." 
Beverley says that Charles II was proclaimed 
by Virginia as her sovereign before he was 
called to the British throne.^^ This statement 
was accepted by many historians until a few 
years ago. Fiske says that the story is absurd, 
that Charles II was proclaimed king in Eng- 
land on the eighth of May, 1661, and in Vir- 
ginia on the twentieth of September follow- 
ing, and for authority refers to some docu- 
ment printed in William and Mary Quarterly. 
While Charles II did not exercise the powers 
of the office of king of Virginia before he was 
proclaimed as the English sovereign, still he 
actually was proclaimed king of Virginia be- 
fore he was proclaimed king of England, even 
if the Virginian proclamation was not heard 
around the world. In the meanwhile the 

13 Robert Beverley, History of Present State of Virginia, 
London, 1705, p. 56, cited by Fiske, vol. ii, p. 21. 



38 The Sovereignty of the States 

young nation acknowledged no other king 
than the man whom she had called to her 
throne. 

Already we have seen that the news of the 
execution of Charles I was received in Vir- 
ginia with deep indignation. Fiske himself 
says: "In October the assembly declared 
that the beheading of the king will enact a 
treason which nobody in Virginia must dare 
to speak in defence of under penalty of death. 
It also spoke of the fugitive Charles II as 
^his majesty that now is/ and made it trea- 
son to call his authority in question.'' ^* So 
Fiske himself quotes from Virginia's proc- 
lamation, made by the parliament of her peo- 
ple, and published to the world nearly two 
years before Charles II was proclaimed king 
of England. Even if Virginia did not for- 
mally issue her proclamation before England 
issued hers, still the spirit of the times is 
shown in the assertions of contemporaneous 
historians. Fiske himself probably would 
have admitted that Virginia might have pro- 
claimed Charles II as her sovereign at any 
time after the death of Charles I without 
asking the leave of any other nation. 

14 Fiske, vol. i, p. 312. 



The Sovereignty of the States 39 



FROM 1776 TO 1783 

I shall not enter into a detailed account 
of the causes that led the rabble of a part of 
the people of each of the American nations 
to rebel against their king. The sovereignty 
of none of the countries was thereby affected, 
although one may hold that the sovereignty of 
each was placed in jeopardy, inasmuch as 
George III tried to make his American king- 
doms and his European kingdoms into one 
vast empire. I shall remind you that the 
sovereignty of a nation is not necessarily af- 
fected by governmental changes. 

The rebels did not fight that independent 
nations might be made of colonies. The 
American nations had been sovereign entities 
from the time that they were first settled. 
They had successfully resisted the attacks 
made upon them by the British kingdom. The 
honest men among the rebels fought that they 
might establish governments republican in 
form, — believing that all the people could not 
be independent in a kingdom, — with all the 
rights that all human beings should be free 
to exercise. The rebels were unwilling to be 



40 The Sovereignty of the States 

taxed without their consent, they said; but 
no one believes that they would have given 
their consent to be taxed by the British gov- 
ernment — or by any other. 

We shall see that the American kingdoms 
became republics; but we shall also see that 
the rabble did not bring about the change. 
We shall see that the rebellion never reached 
the proportions of a revolution, for we shall 
see that only a small part of the people 
of any of the American nations wished to de- 
pose their king. True, few were willing to 
permit a foreign government to exercise over 
them the high power of sovereignty that would 
be maintained were that government to tax 
them for its own benefit; but, the rabble ex- 
cepted, the peoples of the American nations 
thought that the conditions then existing did 
not make a war with Great Britain necessary. 
More than once the king of the united king- 
doms and the American kingdoms that were 
not united had attempted to make laws com- 
mon to the peoples of all his nations, but such 
international complications had been adjusted 
without an appeal to arms, and very little 
diplomacy had been used in settling all differ- 
ences. The American kingdoms always had 



The Sovereignty of the States 41 

put their king right when he had been wrong, 
and in doing so he had been made to suffer 
very little inconvenience. 

At this time Tories controlled the British 
ministry. Not only was the government in 
sympathy with the rabble, but the king had 
no wish to be harsh with any of his American 
subjects. The rebellion was not taken seri- 
ously by him, nor by the rebels themselves, 
while nearly all of the American peoples con- 
sidered the acts and the utterances of the mobs 
very much as we now consider the crimes and 
the intemperate words of the rabble that is 
always with us. I do not go too far when I 
say that the rebellion would have been 
brought to an end within a few days from the 
time that it began had the British command- 
ers and the American peoples considered the 
rebellion to be more than the temporary ex 
pression of a rabble muttering against con 
stituted authority. 

Already I have quoted from Major Steele 
His American Campaigns^ in two volumes 
was published last year by the Office of the 
Chief of Staff, War Department, Washington 
and is knoT^ni as Document No. 324. It is used 
as a text-book in the post-graduate military 



42 The Sovereignty of the States 

schools, where officers of the army, selected be- 
cause of the high degree of their proficiency, 
pursue their studies in the science of war. 
These volumes represent a part of Major 
Steele's work of three years as lecturer in 
military history in the Army Service Schools 
at Fort Leavenworth. Their value is very 
great. In his department of science I know of 
no writer of higher authority than Major 
Steele. 

Another book of great value from which I 
shall quote frequently is The Military Policy 
of the United States^ by General Emory Up- 
ton, U. S. A., a new edition of which recently 
has been published by the Office of the Chief 
of Staff, War Department, as Document ^o. 
290, with an introduction by Elihu Eoot, 
written by him while he wast secretary of war. 
This book also is studied by army officers that 
are students — rather than pupils — ^at military 
schools. 

FIGHTING STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN NATIONS 

According to the first census, the population 
of the American nations in 1790 was 3,231,317 
Caucasians and 697,897 negroes, making a 



The Sovereignty of the States 43 

total of 3,929,214, or a population of nearly 
four millions. In estimating the fighting 
strength of the nations the negro must be 
taken into consideration, for the people of 
a nation must live while they are at war. The 
negroes were easily controlled. There has 
never been a widespread uprising of negroes 
on this continent. The Southampton Insur- 
rection, the most important of negro revolts 
that have occurred on this continent, involved 
a small territory only. When we consider the 
character of the negro, we readily understand 
that there could never be an important negro 
organisation. Nevertheless, in considering 
this rebellion I shall eliminate the negro, and 
I shall accept General Upton's estimate of 
the population of the American nations, which 
apparently does not include negroes. He as- 
sumed the number of the American peoples 
at the beginning of the Eevolution to be three 
millions.^^ There were more than three mil- 
lion white persons in the American nations in 
1776, I think. But, as I have said, I shall 
accept General Upton's estimate for the pur- 
pose of this oration. 

15 Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United 
States, War Department, Document No. 290, Office of the 
Chief of Staff, p. 66. 



44 The Sovereignty of the States 

I shall also consider the fighting strength 
of the American peoples to have been so small 
as one-fifth of the population. This is a very- 
low estimate when we find that so late as 1880 
the natural militia of Virginia — males be- 
tween the ages of eighteen and forty-four years 
inclusive — was 264,033 Caucasians and 102,- 
426 negroes, a total of 366,459 in a male 
population of 747,589, or nearly one-half the 
male population. Surely in earlier days, when 
men were not penned up in cities, when males 
were more numerous than females in new 
countries, when men were sturdy at eighty, the 
fighting strength of the American peoples 
must have exceeded one-fifth of their popula- 
tion. 

CHARACTER OF THE RABBLE FORCE 

The rebels always had a large paper army, 
although that army was never more than nine 
per cent of the fighting strength of the Amer- 
ican nations. By " paper army," I mean the 
men that were counted as soldiers who never 
saw service, who enlisted in militia organisa- 
tions for periods ranging from a day to sev- 
eral months, and who were usually bribed to 
violate the allegiance that they owed to their 



The Sovereignty of the States 45 

king. A table submitted by the secretary of 
war to congress in 1790 shows that the entire 
paper army of the rebels for the year 1776 
was 89,661; yet, says General Upton, the 
average of that paper army could not have 
been more than between 40,000 to 50,000 men. 
As we presently shall see, the largest force 
that Washington could have put into the field 
during the entire war was 17,000 men. 

I will show you how paper soldiers were 
made. On March 29, 1779, congress recom- 
mended Virginia and North Carolina to raise 
as many men for their defence as they could, 
the soldiers to serve for one year, and not to 
be obliged to go north of the Potomac river. 
A bounty of two hundred dollars was to be 
given to each of these soldiers, and their 
names were to be entered in the rebels' ar- 
chives as a part of their military force. To 
quote from General Upton again : " Large for 
the time as were the bounties granted by con- 
gress, those offered by the states were still 
larger. The legislature of New Jersey, to fill 
its quota for its three battalions, offered two 
hundred and fifty dollars to each recruit, in 
addition to the clothing, land, and two hun- 
dred dollars allowed by congress. While the 



46 The Sovereignty of the States 

legislature of Virginia, on the third of May, 
offered to every recruit for the war seven hun- 
dred and fifty dollars, a suit of clothes once 
a year, and one hundred acres of land." ^® In- 
deed was the patriotism of the rabble suffi- 
cient to make them blush in their confusion 
of innocence. 

According to the tables that the secretary 
of war prepared in 1790, many men, includ- 
ing the paper militia, enlisted for a few days 
only. These tables show that the whole paper 
force for 1775 was 37,623. The tables also 
give the following information: whole rebel 
paper force, for 1776, 89,661, of which Vir- 
ginia supplied 6,181 and Massachusetts 20,- 
372; for 1777, 68,720, of which Virginia sup- 
plied 11,013 and Massachusetts 12,591; for 
1778, 51,046, of which Virginia supplied 7,830 
and Massachusetts 13,437; for 1779, 44,275, 
of which Virginia supplied 8,573 and Massa- 
chusetts 7,738; for 1780, 43,076, of which Vir- 
ginia supplied 6,986 and Massachusetts 7,- 
889; for 1781, 29,340, of which Virginia 
supplied 6,119 and Massachusetts 5,298; 
for 1782, 18,006, of which Virginia supplied 
2,204 and Massachusetts 4,423; for 1783, 13,- 

16 Upton, p. 41. 



The Sovereignty of the States 47 

477, of which Virginia supplied 629 and 
Massachusetts 4,370. Thus of rebel paper 
soldiers, Virginia supplied 49,935 and Massa- 
chusetts 80,118, while the combined paper 
strength of the rebels was 395,224. The high- 
est number of paper soldiers that Virginia 
supplied during any one year was 11,013, 
while the lowest number that she supplied in 
any one year was 629, yet Virginia's fighting 
strength was something like 100,000 men. The 
small state of Massachusetts supplied nearly 
double the number of men that were supplied 
by Virginia. 

During the last year of the rebellion Vir- 
ginia had fewer men under arms than she has 
had from 1624 to the present day. During 
the entire insurrection the Virginian rebel 
paper force, the bulk of which admittedly 
stayed at home, was less than 5,000 men. The 
average paper force during the rebellion was 
less than 44,000 men, or about one and one- 
half per cent of the whole population, or 
about one man out of every 350 white men. 

During 1776, when the aggregate number 
of rebel insurgent paper troops reached 89,- 
661, the enemy had but 20,121 troops in all 
America, although operating in the enemy's 



48 The Sovereignty of the States 

territory, and in one year only did the English 
force number so many as 42,075. The aver- 
age force of the British was about 30,000 men. 
These figures, save for the average, are taken 
from General Upton's book." 

In 1775 the military strength of the Amer- 
ican nations was 600,000 men, based on the 
low estimate of one-fifth of the white popula- 
tion alone. Nevertheless, as General Upton 
tells us, " The largest force. Continental and 
militia, that Washington could lead to battle 
at any one time was less than seventeen thou- 
sand, while at the battles of Trenton and 
Princeton, during the time of our greatest 
peril, his effective strength was less than four 
thousand." ^^ Thus at no time were the rebels 
able to put on the field much more than one- 
half of one per cent of the white population 
of the American nations. 

Let us consider the kind of force that 
was supposed to constitute an army. Ma- 
jor Steele says that when Washington took 
command at Boston, July 2, 1775, his men 
made "a rabble without uniforms, without 
tents, without supplies, without discipline.'' 

17 Upton, p. 59. 18 Upton, p. 65. 

19 Steele, vol. i, p. 25. 



19 



The Sovereignty of the States 49 

In the same paragraph he takes Washington 
to task, saying that he had plenty of time to 
make an army of his rabble, " for no fighting 
took place within the northern colonies until 
the Battle of Long Island, more than a year 
later, August 27, 1776." General Upton also 
pays his respects to Washington and to his 
creatures, saying: "When Washington took 
command his army numbered 17,000 men, 
but the number fit for duty did not exceed 14,- 
500. The strength of the enemy was estimated 
by the council of war at 11,500; but after de- 
ducting the sick and wounded his real effective 
strength was not over 6,500. Notwithstand- 
ing this disparity in numbers, neither Wash- 
ington nor his generals deemed it prudent to 
attack, and the year passed away in hopeless 
inactivity." ^^ 

General Howe and Admiral Howe, savs 
Major Steele, both sympathised with the col- 
onies, and he quotes Goldwin Smith, thus: 
"As a member of Parliament he [General 
Howe] had pledged himself to his constituents 
not to fight against the Americans, and he 
must have been fettered by that pledge." In 
the same paragraph Major Steele says that 

20 Upton, p. 9. 



50 The Sovereignty of the States 

it " is too much to say that he was unfaithful 
to the trust imposed upon him, although the 
evidence certainly points to that verdict." ^^ 
The inactivity of the British thus was due to 
several causes, a few of which I shall show 
later. 

Even John Adams admitted that one-third 
of his people were loyal to their king. Had 
he entirely obeyed the demands of his con- 
science he would have said that a larger part 
of his people by far were their sovereign's 
obedient subjects. In Virginia nearly all the 
people were loyal, as presently we shall see. 

PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION 

Not many of the inhabitants of New Eng- 
land accompanied Washington to New York 
after the evacuation of Boston, for Ma- 
jor Steele says that Washington, in taking the 
bulk of his force, took only 8,000 men with 
him. 

Again to quote from General Upton : " The 
total loss of Washington's Army in killed, 
from the time that he took command, to the 
end of the siege of Boston, did not reach 20, 
while the whole loss in killed from the battle 

21 Steele, vol. i, p. 37. 



The Sovereignty of the States 51 

of Lexington was less than 200."^^ Major 
Steele, further commenting on the evacuation 
of Boston, says : " The strangest thing of all, 
he [Howe] left there, to be seized by the 
rebels, ' more than 200 cannon, tons of pow- 
der and lead, thousands of muskets, and all 
sorts of miscellaneous military stores.' It 
was not until after the 17th of March that he 
[Howe] sailed — twelve days after Washing- 
ton had seized the heights. He certainly had 
time to destroy those arms and supplies. This 
and all of General Howe's subsequent con- 
duct cannot fail to make the impartial stu- 
dent suspect him."^^ On the next page he 
says that Howe's withdrawal to Halifax so 
encouraged the insurgents that the Declara- 
tion of Independence followed a few months 
afterward. 

Washington seems to have understood that 
his rabble capitalised the insurrection, ex- 
ploiting the American peoples all they could. 
I will quote from a letter that he wrote to 
the president of the council of Massachusetts 
Bay under date of August 7, 1775: 

" By the general return made to me for last 

22 Upton, p. 12. 23 Steele, vol. i, p. 25. 



52 The Sovereignty of the States 



week, I find that there are great numbers of 
soldiers and non-commissioned oflftcers who ab- 
sent themselves from duty, the greater part of 
whom, I have reason to believe, are at their 
respective homes in different parts of the 
country; some employed by their officers on 
their farms and others drawing pay from the 
public, while they are working on their plan- 
tations or for hire. My utmost exertions have 
not been able to prevent this base and per- 
nicious conduct. I must, therefore, beg the 
assistance of the General Court to cooperate 
with me in such measures as may remedy this 
mischief. 

" I need not enlarge upon the ruinous con- 
sequence of suffering such infamous deserters 
and defrauders of the public to go unnoticed 
or unpunished, nor use any arguments to in- 
duce the general court to give it immediate 
attention." ^* 

The Battle of Long Island was disastrous to 
the rabble, so Washington retreated to New 
Jersey. By the time that he had reached New 
Brunswick his force was reduced to 3,000, the 

24 Sparks, Writings of Washington, vol. iii, pp. 65-66, 
quoted by Upton, pp. 8-9. 



The Sovereignty of the States 53 

rest of his followers having deserted or their 
terms of service having expired.^^ January 3, 
1777, Washington reported to Congress that 
" the whole of our numbers in New Jersey, fit 
for duty at this time, is under 3,000. These, 
981 excepted, are militia and stand engaged 
only until the last of this month." Virginians 
will be interested to know that in his report 
he said that of Virginians a " handful of men " 
only were with him. Commenting on this 
paper, quoting Sparks, General Upton says 
that Washington's regular soldiers were thus 
reduced to less than 1,000, while his enemy 
had more than 20,000 veterans in and about 
New York. 

Everybody seemed to think that the rebel- 
lion was effectually suppressed. Major Steele 
says that when "Washington retreated into 
New Jersey, instead of pursuing his demoral- 
ised band to its destruction, Howe followed it 
slowly a short way," that "he made no at- 
tempt to do anything at all during the win- 
ter months but riot in the fleshpots and fri- 
volities of social life in New York or Phila- 
delphia." The rebels entered New York and 
left as they pleased.^® 

25 Steele, vol. i, p. 30. 26 Steele, vol. i, p. 37. 



54 The Sovereignty of the States 

Many of the intelligent inhabitants of the 
American nations did not even know that 
there was a rebellion until several years after 
the British soldiers had been fired on at Lex- 
ington, this for the reason that the operations 
of the rabble were confined to a few places, 
beyond which there were few evidences of re- 
bellion, if any. After a bit of flurry in South 
Carolina in June, 1776, the southern nations 
were not again annoyed by the presence of the 
English until the autumn of 1778, we are 
told by Major Steele. Few of the inhabitants 
of Virginia saw a redcoat during the entire 
nine years of the rebellion. By the late au- 
tumn of 1778 the British occupied New York 
City alone, and, says Major Steele : " Outside 
of the immediate theatre of operations, the 
Americans up to this time had suffered few 
of the discomforts of war." ^^ 

RABBLE FIGHTING 

We have seen how these bribed creatures 
fought — or did not fights — at Boston and at 
New York, and we have imagined their speed 
as they ran through New Jersey. Now I am 
unable to resist the temptation to refer to the 

27 Steele, vol. i, p. 43. 



The Sovereignty of the States 55 

Battle of Camden, so I quote from two de- 
scriptions of that extraordinary conflict. I 
begin with Major Steele's account: 

" Meanwhile Cornwallis had arrived with 
reinforcements. The Americans, however, 
still outnumbered the British. There were 
3,052 Americans, only 1,400 of whom were 
regulars, to 2,000 British. Gates, however, 
had not learned of the arrival of Cornwallis, 
and he detached 400 of his best Maryland 
regulars to join Sumter in cutting the British 
line of communication with Charleston. 

"At ten o'clock at night the two little ar- 
mies advanced toward each other, each hoping 
to take the other by surprise. The result was 
the Battle of Camden, August 16, 1780, on a 
narrow piece of ground with an impassable 
swamp on each flank. Gates' Virginia and 
North Carolina militia threw down their 
arms, and fled without firing a shot. ' Within 
fifteen minutes,' says Fiske, ' the whole Amer- 
ican left became a mob of struggling men, 
smitten with mortal panic, and huddling like 
sheep in their wild flight, while Tarleton's 
[British] cavalry gave chase and cut them 
down by scores.' The Maryland brigade be- 



56 The Sovereignty of the States 

haved better; but it also was driven from the 
field. The patriots were badly defeated. Gen- 
eral Gates himself escaped to Hillsboro, rid- 
ing 200 miles in four days." ^^ 

Now I quote from the description written 
by one of the officers in that battle, " Light 
Horse Harry " Lee, the father of the greatest 
of all Virginian soldiers: 

" The Maryland leading regiment was soon 
recovered from the confusion produced by the 
panic of Armand's cavalry. [Here I break 
in upon "the noble Harry" that I may tell 
you that even to this day the whereabouts 
of no man of all Armand's cavalry is known. 
When an unknown horseman madly rushes 
along a South Carolinian highway, excite- 
ment in all his features, his clothes awry, the 
onlookers say, " There goes one of Armand's 
cavalrymen."] Battle, although unexpected, 
was now inevitable, and General Gates ar- 
rayed his army with promptitude. The Sec- 
ond Brigade of Maryland, with the regiment 
of Delaware, under General Gist, took the 

28 Steele, vol. i, pp. 45-46. 



The Sovereignty of the States 57 

right; the brigade of INorth Carolina the cen- 
ter, and that of Virginia, under Brigadier 
Stevens, the left. The First Brigade of Mary- 
land was formed in reserve under the com- 
mand of General Smallwood. To each bri- 
gade a due proportion of artillery was al- 
lotted, but we had no cavalry, as those who 
fled in the night were still flying. Maj. Gen. 
Baron de Kalb, charged with the line of bat- 
tle, took post on the right, while the general 
in chief, superintending the whole, placed 
himself on the road between the line and the 
reserve. 

"The light of day dawned — the signal for 
battle. Instantly our centre opened its artil- 
lery, and the left of our line, under Stevens, 
was ordered to advance. The veterans of the 
enemy, composing its right, were of course 
opposed to the Virginia militia, whereas they 
ought to have been faced by the Continental 
Brigade. Stevens, however, exhorting his 
soldiers to rely on the bayonet, advanced with 
his accustomed intrepidity. Lieut.-Col. Otho 
Williams, adjutant-general, preceded him 
with a band of volunteers, in order to unite 
the fire of the enemy before they were in 
reach of the militia, that experience of its ef- 



58 The Sovereignty of the States 

ficiency might encourage the latter to do their 
duty. 

^^The British general, closely watching our 
motives, discovered this movement on the left, 
and gave orders to Webster to lead into bat- 
tle with the right. The command was exe- 
cuted with the characteristic courage and in- 
telligence of that officer. Our left was in- 
stantly overpowered by the assault; and the 
brave Stevens had to endure the mortifying 
spectacle exhibited by his flying brigade. 
Without exchanging more than one fire with 
the enemy, they threw away their arms and 
sought that safety in flight which generally 
can be obtained only by courageous resistance. 
The North Carolina brigade, imitating that 
on the right, followed the shameful example. 
Stevens, Gaswell, and Gates himself struggled 
to stop the fugitives and rally them for bat- 
tle; but every noble feeling of the heart was 
sunk in base solicitude to preserve life ; and 
having no cavalry to assist their exertions, 
the attempted reclamation failed entirely. . . . 

"Our loss was very heavy. More than a 
third of the Continental troops were killed 
and wounded; and of the wounded 170 were 
made prisoners. The Eegiment of Delaware 



The Sovereignty of the States 59 

was nearly annihilated. . . . The North 
Carolina militia also suffered greatly; more 
than 300 were taken and nearly 106 killed 
and wounded. Contrary to the usual course 
of events and the general wish, the Virginia 
militia who set the infamous example which 
produced the destruction of our army escaped 
entirely." ^® 

General Upton tells us that an incident of 
the Battle of Guilford Court-house should not 
be overlooked. He says that Stevens, " prof- 
iting by his experience at Camden, where he 
had been deserted by his brigade, placed a 
chain of sentinels in the rear of the second 
line with orders to shoot the first man who 
should try to desert his post." ^^ 

In the spring of 1781 La Fayette was in 
command in Virginia, with 3,000 men, where 
he was to resist Cornwallis, who had an army 
of 5,000 veterans. La Fayette was joined by 
1,000 Pennsylvanians, and later was further 
reinforced by Steuben, with 1,000 men. Let 
us pause: 420,000 white Virginians, whose 
fighting strength could not have been less 

29 Lee, Memoirs, vol. i, pp. 178-183, quoted by Upton, 
pp. 44-45. 
so Upton, p. 56. 



60 The Sovereignty of the States 

than 80,000, and may have been 100,000, re- 
sisted the invasion of Virginia with French- 
men assisted by a few Pennsylvanians. There 
may have been a few Virginians SKulking 
about hedges. Does any Virginian believe 
that story? 

I think not. I recall that so early as 1676 
the two small counties that constitute the 
Eastern Shore raised an army of one thou- 
sand men to uphold the authority of the king. 
No, Virginia was not invaded. Her rabble 
was in rebellion, which would be suppressed 
by Virginia's sovereign at his pleasure. If 
you take any other position, Virginians, go 
hide your faces in shame! 

THE KING ABDICATES 

The surrender of Cornwallis did not force 
the British to withdraw from American ter- 
ritory. Long before that event Burgoyne had 
surrendered a large army. General Upton 
says that during the entire rebellion two 
military events only " had a direct bear- 
ing upon the expulsion of the British. One 
of these was the capture of Burgoyne; the 
other that of Cornwallis — an event which 



The Sovereignty of the States 61 

was only made possible by the cooperation 
of a French army and a French fleet." 

But while these tAvo events possibly led 
George III to leave the throne of his Ameri- 
can kingdom, they could not have greatly in- 
fluenced him. He lived in England, and Eng- 
land had been at war for more than two cen- 
turies, with brief respites snatched at inter- 
vals. During the time of the rebellion of 
his American subjects England was at war 
with France, with Spain, and with Holland, 
his subjects in India were in rebellion, while 
beyond his own English realm he was with- 
out a friend in all Europe. Even at home his 
enemies were thick. The Tories would shout 
with joy every time a British subject laid 
down his life under fire. Says Major Steele: 
" There are, indeed, many points of likeness 
between the Philippine Insurrection and our 
own Kevolution; but there is this main dif- 
ference: our Kevolution succeeded. Had it 
failed, it would be in the world's annals 
merely an insurrection, too, occupying a few 
pages in British history, and having no na- 
tional history of its own."^^ 

Many forget that the American nations 

31 Steele, vol. i, p. 23. 



62 The Sovereignty of the States 

were world powers at the time of the rebel- 
lion. They forget that the last Kevolution- 
ary pensioner died but a few years ago. In- 
deed, the last of the Revolutionary rabble 
did not die until 1869, while in 1875 there 
were 379 widows of Revolutionary soldiers 
drawing pensions. No, the period of the Revo- 
lution was not long ago. At that time the 
population of England was not greater than 
twice that of the American peoples. The 
first reliable British census, taken in 1801, 
shows that the population of England and 
Wales combined was then 8,892,536. Prob- 
ably the population of England in 1775 was 
not greater than six millions. 

England at that time had her naval sta- 
tions in all parts of the world. She had an 
abundance of territory for her surplus popu- 
lation on the American continent without 
drawing on the nations to the south of Can- 
ada. She had bound the American peoples 
to her with chains that had been forged by 
Almighty God, and she knew that no link 
could ever be broken. George descended 
from the throne of each American nation ; but 
surely he was forced off the throne of none. 

Thirteen nations, with a military strength 



The Sovereignty of the States 63 

of 600,000 men, could have driven away those 
6,500 effective men who occupied Boston. 
Yet there are persons who contend that a 
force of 6,500 effective men, three thousand 
miles from home, was able to hold the vast 
territories of thirteen kingdoms, in which 
there were large tracts of unsurveyed lands, 
and in which there were more than three mil- 
lion Caucasian inhabitants besides hosts of 
hostile savages! One person only in five hun- 
dred willing to resist an invasion of his 
country? 

Not so! Americans were virtuous beyond 
all other peoples: the rabble, 1; the worthy, 
500. If the American peoples were fighting 
a war with Great Britain — or if they were 
resisting the authority of their lawful king 
— they permitted thirty thousand men to hold 
three million men in check — in check while 
they had a fighting force of six hundred thou- 
sand men. If that be the calibre of the peo- 
ple that comprised this monarchy, then, I 
say, the most savage of the tribes of darkest 
Africa were superior to those American peo- 
ples, for no nation would undertake to con- 
quer three million savages with thirty 
thousand men. 



64 The Sovereignty of the States 

How many Americans would be required to 
conquer the Philippine peoples? Not all the 
people of this vast monarchy may conquer 
the Philippine peoples in all time. Why, you 
say, they have been conquered! If so, why 
are they permitted to buy and sell human 
beings? Why in the Philippines are men and 
women sold into a slavery vastly more brutal 
than ever has been known on this continent? 
No, despite warfare that has been waged in 
our foreign " possessions " for twelve years, 
the various Philippine nations are still sover- 
eign, and they will remain sovereign so long 
as the American monarchy exists, even though 
American soldiers occupy Philippine lands 
until the crack of doom. Turn back the 
hands of Time, O Despot of this Monarchy, 
and when you reach the period of Elizabeth, 
learn the lesson that she taught her subjects 
more than three hundred years ago: no peo- 
ple may ever be possessed by any other peo- 
ple; no colonies may ever be established; the 
only bonds that may bind humanity are those 
of love. 

Highway robhers, the rabble fought for 
themselves. There were exceptions. At least 
one gentleman was a rebel; the gallant 



The Sovereignty of the States 65 

"Light Horse Harry." But, I repeat, few 
Virginians desired to alter the government 
under which they lived. Few hated the 
mother at whose breast they were nursed. 

After the Treaty of Paris all worthy per- 
sons in the American nations supported their 
new governments. They showed that the 
American peoples of 1775 were among the 
powerful nations of the earth, for those same 
peoples after the Treaty of Paris continued 
to develop the American republics until they 
became powerful in all that makes a great 
people great. But do not mistake the rabble 
that fought their king for the patriots who 
established the American republics. 

GOVERNMENT BY THE RABBLE 

Although the rebels constituted but a small 
proportion of the population of any of the 
American nations, yet they gained control of 
each of the American governments. That 
they were able to do so is the most inexplic- 
able part of American history. In Virginia 
the rabble constituted so small a part of the 
population, I am lost in wonder that con- 
ditions could have been as they were in this 
old commonwealth. 



66 The Sovereignty of the States 

However, in more than one period of Vir- 
ginia's life native Virginians have governed 
Virginia in a manner that would have made 
carpetbaggers blush in their shame; neverthe- 
less the people of no other land, in no other 
time, have been so noble as Virginians. They 
have seen carpetbaggers purchase split-bottom 
chairs at sixty-seven cents apiece while act- 
ing as private citizens, then sell the same 
chairs to the Virginian government while act- 
ing as Virginian legislators at sixty-seven dol- 
lars a piece; but also Virginians have seen 
Virginian legislators bribe the Virginian rab- 
ble at seven hundred and fifty dollars a head 
to become paper soldiers to fight on paper 
against their king. 

Virginia, according to the point of view of 
these legislators, was invaded. For several 
years the rabble had drawn good pay, — more 
than they had ever received before in their 
lives, year in and year out, — and their serv- 
ice had consisted in having their names made 
a part of the archives of their country as sol- 
diers serving at home ; and further service con- 
sisted in wanton crimes committed on the 
persons and the estates of noble Virginians, 
men and women who were the pride of Vir- 



The Sovereignty of the States 67 

ginia; and they still further served Virginia 
by taking their pay as soldiers and their 
bounty of seven hundred and fifty dollars a 
head to taverns, where they spent it in all 
sorts of beastly sensualities. Thus had Vir- 
ginians rewarded these faithful servants. 

"Assuming three millions as a total num- 
ber of our people at the beginning of the Rev- 
olution, the whole cost of this country to 
each man, woman, and child was |123, while, 
upon the basis of a population of 31,000,000 
in 1861, the total cost per capita of the War 
of the Rebellion was but |96." '^ 

They were further rewarded: 

" The total amount paid to Revolutionary 
pensioners up to June 30, 1876, for a period 
of service of six months and over, was |46,- 
177,845.44." ^^ 

General Upton goes on to tell us that " the 
total of pensions in round numbers amounts 
to 180,000,000," basing his figures on the re- 
port of Bentley, Commissioner of Pensions. 

I shall not further recite the awful 
crimes committed against Virginia by Vir- 
ginians while they governed Virginia dur- 
ing the rebellion. None of us for one mo- 

32 Upton, p. 66. 33 Upton, p. 65. 



68 The Sovereignty of the States 

ment can believe that the mass of Virginians 
were other than faithful to Virginia's high 
traditions and high ideals. A handful of rab- 
ble dominated her — and we wonder. That 
the rabble of the other nations were quite as 
bad as Virginians I have already intimated. 
Now I quote from a letter that George Wash- 
ington wrote to Joseph Eeed, and then I am 
done with the character of the rabble. The 
letter is one of probably a hundred similar 
letters that Washington wrote to Congress 
and to his subordinates. 

" Such a dearth of public spirit and such 
want of virtue, such stock- jobbing and fertil- 
ity in all the low arts to obtain advantages 
of one kind or another in this great change 
of military arrangement, I never saw before, 
and pray God's mercy that I may never be 
witness to again. What will be the end of 
these manoeuvre is beyond my scan. I trem- 
ble at the prospect. We have been till this 
time enlisting about three thousand five hun- 
dred men. To engage these I have been 
obliged to allow furloughs as far as fifty men 
to a regiment, an4 the officers, I am per- 
suaded, indulge as many more. The Con- 



The Sovereignty of the States 69 

necticut troops will not be prevailed upon to 
stay longer than their term, saving those who 
have enlisted for the next campaign, and are 
mostly on furlough; and such a mercenary 
spirit pervades the whole that I should not 
be at all surprised at any disaster that may 
happen. In short, after the last of this month 
our lines will be so weakened that the min- 
ute men and militia must be called in for 
their defence, and these being under no kind 
of government themselves will destroy the lit- 
tle subordination I have been laboring to es- 
tablish, and run me into one evil while I am 
endeavoring to avoid another; but the less 
must be chosen." ^* 

GOVERNMENT UNDER FIRST FEDERAL COMPACT 

At no time during the rebellion did the 
American nations act as a single nation. A 
treaty was entered into by them on Novem- 
ber 15, 1777, the treaty being known as Arti- 
cles of Confederation. Says Frothingham, 
the treaty as amended, and as accepted by all 
the American nations, provides that " ' each 
state retains its sovereignty, freedom and in- 

34 Sparks, Writings of Washington, vol. iii, pp. 178-179, 
quoted by Upton, p. 6. 



70 The Sovereignty of the States 

dependence ^ — the first statement after tlie 
Confederation had been given a name." ^^ 
This was the first governmental union made 
by the American nations for purposes other 
than war, and the object of this union really 
was to wage war successfully. The nations 
parties to the compact each continued to ex- 
ercise full powers of sovereignty, and when 
they disapproved any provision of the con- 
federation such provision was disregarded by 
them. 

For a moment let us look closely at the 
"government" under the compact of 1777 
and its amendments. In 1784 the citizens of 
the western part of North Carolina seceded 
from that nation and formed themselves iiito 
a republic, to which they gave the name State 
of Franklin.^® A government was organised, 
consisting of a parliament with two houses, 
a governor, and a full judiciary department. 
Landon Carter was; chosen speaker of the 
Senate and Thomas Talbot clerk, while Wil- 

35 Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United 
States, p. 561 ; quoted by Ewing, Northern Rebellion and 
Southern Secession, p. 14. 

36 An excellent history of the State of Franklin is con- 
tained in Prof. Francis M. Turner's Life of General John 
Sevier, one of the authorities that I consulted in the prep- 
aration of this oration. 



The Sovereignty of the States 71 

liam Gage was chosen speaker of the House 
of Commons, and Thomas Chapmani clerk; 
General John Sevier was elected governor, 
and the Supreme Court was presided over 
by three judges. A constitution was adopted, 
and for several years the government was ef- 
fectively administered, until March, 1788, 
when Sevier's term of office expired. During 
the life of this little republic it exercised all 
the functions of sovereignty, including the 
waging of civil war. Civil strife only was the 
cause of her destruction. In time the re- 
public became the present state of Tennessee. 

• • • • • 

No matter what view one may take of the 
strife known as the Revolutionary War, — 
whether the American nations fought to re- 
sist powers of sovereignty that England at- 
tempted to exercise over them, whether they 
fought to change their nations from king- 
doms to republics, or whether they fought to 
establish nations, — one must admit that they 
were sovereignties the moment that the Treaty 
of Paris became effective. 

Let us consider one of the provisions of 
that treaty: 

"His Britannic Majesty acknowledges that 



72 The Sovereignty of the States 

said United States, viz: New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- 
land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- 
lina, and Georgia, to be Free Sovereign, and 
Independent States; that he treats with them 
as such."^^ 

Thus the king common to Great Britain 
and all the American nations, — and to other 
nations, such as Canada, — ^acting as the 
head of the British Government, acknowl- 
edged the independence of each of the Ameri- 
can nations — not the independence of those 
nations confederally, but the independence 
of those nations individually, as separate po- 
litical entities. At the same time the Ameri- 
can nations ceased to be kingdoms. 

Thus we find that the Revolutionary War 
never affected the sovereignty of any one of 
the American countries. 

87 Art. i, Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783. 



II 

THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS 
FROM 1783 TO 1865 

The treaty known as Articles of Confedera- 
tion was the only compact that existed be- 
tween the American nations from 1777 until 
the treaty of 1788 went into effect. 

That the treaty of 1788 and its amend- 
ments was not nearly perfect as an in- 
strument by which the nations expressed 
their views of the confederation that they 
had formed, is shown by the trouble that 
it caused from the time that it was adopted 
until the present day. That document has 
been the cause of more litigation than any 
other instrument ever written. Tens of thou- 
sands of human beings have lost their lives 
in trying to interpret it. Not only was it 
imperfect as an agreement, but it was the 
means of defeating the object that the par- 
ties to it wished to attain. While I shall 
not attempt to point to all its defects, I shall 
ask you to consider these few: 

73 



74 The Sovereignty of the States 

A powerful blow was dealt to the sover- 
eignty of the American nations when the com- 
pact permitted the federal power to levy any 
kind of tax. Nor should any nation permit 
a holding company to make her money, change 
her fiscal system at will, nor in any other 
way to interfere with her domestic affairs. 
No nation should permit a holding company 
to organise and to control her militia. 

Here I stop recounting the defects of the 
treaty that was intended to regulate the Amer- 
ican nations in their intercourse with one an- 
other and with other nations, for I should take 
your time unnecessarily were I able to point 
out all the defects that mar a compact that 
might have been perfect. Let me say, however, 
that at least one Virginian apparently saw all 
the defects of that compact. I refer to Pat- 
rick Henry, the greatest statesman of his 
period, and among the great statesmen of all 
time. 

"Congress," said he, "by the power of tax- 
ation — by that of raising an army, and by 
their control over the militia, have the sword 
in one hand, and the purse in the other. 
Shall we be safe without either .?''^^ So 

38 William Wirt, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence 
and Speeches, 3 vols., vol. 3, p. 495. 



The Sovereignty of the States 75 

spoke that great statesman June 9, 1788; and 
then he went on to say : " Let him candidly 
tell me, where and when did freedom exist 
when the sword and purse were given up 
from the people? Unless a miracle in human 
affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its 
liberty after the loss of the sword and 
purse." ^^ There were Virginians other than 
Patrick Henry who saw many of the defects 
of the compact. 

There were statesmen in all the American 
nations that were in sympathy with Patrick 
Henry's views. Samuel Adams in a letter 
to Kichard Henry Lee said, " I stumble at the 
threshold." Evidently he viewed the instru- 
ment with misgivings. 

TREATY OF 1788 AS VIEW^ED BY THE NATIONS 

Few of the American nations, if any, were 
willing to become parties to the written agree- 
ment until they had been assured that it 
should not be construed to affect their sover- 
eignty in the least. They were willing to del- 
egate specified powers to a holding company, 
— such as the federal agents would make, — 
for each nation would have the right to take 

39 Wirt, vol. 3, p. 495. 



76 The Sovereignty of the States 

back the powers so delegated. The relations 
of each country to the federal agents were 
to be similar to those that exist between 
client and lawyer. Each nation intended 
carefully to guard her rights under the treaty 
as well as her sovereignty. 

In the constitutional convention that as- 
sembled in Philadelphia in 1787, one of the 
delegates from Delaware declared that his 
nation would form an alliance with some 
European power rather than enter int0 a 
union that would empower stronger nations 
to treat her unfairly. 

Unwilling to jeopardise her sovereignty, 
Massachusetts had refused to become a party 
to the treaty of 1788 unless that agreement 
should be amended in this: ^^ First , That it 
be explicitly declared that all Powers not ex- 
pressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitu- 
tion are reserved to the several States to be 
by them exercised." *^ The " amendments & 
alterations " that were demanded by Massa- 
chusetts were held to be necessary "to re- 
move fears & quiet apprehensions of many of 
the good people of this Commonwealth & 

40 Documentary History of the Constitution of the 
United States, vol. ii, p. 94. 



The Sovereignty of the States 77 

more effectually guard against an undue ad- 
ministration of the Federal Government."*^ 
New York became a party to the compact 
after she had made known her interpretation 
of the agreement in the following language: 
" That the Powers of Government may be re- 
sumed by the People, whensoever it shall be 
necessary to their Happiness; that every 
Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not 
by the said Constitution clearly delegated 
to the Congress of the United States, or the 
departments of the Government thereof, re- 
mains to the People of the several States, or 
to their respective State Governments to 
whom they may have granted the same; And 
that those clauses in the said Constitution, 
which declare, that Congress shall not have 
or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that 
Congress is entitled to any Powers not given 
by the said Constitution; but such Clauses 
are to be construed either as exceptions to 
certain specified Powers, or as inserted 
merely for greater caution."*^ 

Rhode Island, one of the nations that re- 
fused to enter into the compact, in time of- 

41 lUd., p. 93. 

42 Documentary Eistory of the Constitution of the 
United States, vol. ii, p. 94. 



78 The Sovereignty of the States 

fered to enter into trade relations with her 
sister nations, and " at the request and in be- 
half of the General Assembly " her governor 
forwarded " To the President, the Senate, 
and the House of Representatives of the 
eleven United States of America" her "dis- 
position to cultivate mutual harmony and 
friendly intercourse.'' The papers were of- 
ficially labeled " Rhode Island desires to 
maintain friendly relations with the United 
States,'' and bearing that label were laid be- 
fore the federal congress by Washington Sep- 
tember 26, 1789. Rhode Island continued to 
exercise her sovereign rights unmolested un- 
til May 29, 1790, when she became a party 
to the treaty between the American nations, 
at her request, — ^but not before she had im- 
posed the following conditions: "That the 
powers of government may be resumed by the 
people whenever it shall become necessary 
to their happiness: — That the rights of the 
States respectively, to nominate and appoint 
all State Officers, and every other power, 
jurisdiction and right, which is not by the 
said constitution clearly delegated to the 
Congress of the United States or to the de- 
partments of government thereof, remain to 



The Sovereignty of the States 79 

the people of the several states, or their re- 
spective State Governments to whom they 
may have granted the same." *^ 

No nation made known her interpretation 
of the treaty of 1788 in clearer terms than 
did Virginia, for she published to the world 
that the powers that she intended to delegate 
to the federal government might be taken 
back by her people " whenever the same shall 
be perverted to their injury or oppression 
and every power not granted remains with 
them at their will." ** The Constitution, she 
said, would have to contain the following 
words, or words of similar purport : " That 
each state in the Union shall, respectively, 
retain every power, jurisdiction and right 
which is not by this Constitution delegated 
to the Congress of the United States, or to 
the Departments of the Federal Govern- 
ment." 

When assured that the treaty would be al- 
tered to meet their requirements, the nations 
that had refused to enter the union became 
parties to the compact, which was later 

43 Documentary History of the Constitution of the 
United States, vol. ii, p. 311. 

44 David L. Pulliam, Constitutional Laws of Virginia, 
pp. 39-45. 



80 The Sovereignty of the States 

amended in language that is not open to 
misinterpretation: "The powers not dele- 
gated to the United States by the Constitu- 
tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." *® 

TREATY OF 1788 AS VIEWED BY STATESMEN 

Of the five men that Fiske says moulded 
the confederation of states, Washington, Jef- 
ferson, and Madison held that the Constitu- 
tion was a compact between the states, and 
that each state was an independent sover- 
eignty. 

In a letter to Madison, dated August 3, 
1778, Washington used the following words: 
"... till the States begin to act under the 
new compact." Time and again Washington 
said that the states were independent nations, 
their sovereignty unaffected by the treaty to 
which they were parties. 

Said Madison in 1799: "The Constitution 
of the United States was framed by the sanc- 
tion of the States, giv^n by each in its sover- 
eign capacity."*^ Mr. Jefferson Davis, in his 

45 Amendments to the Constitution, Art. x. 
46 Edward Payson Powell, Nullification and Secession in 
the United States, p. 102. 



The Sovereignty of the States 81 

splendid book, The Rise and Fall of the Con- 
federate Government^ reports that Madison 
also said, " The people — ^but not the people 
as composing one great body; but the people 
as composing thirteen sovereignties," made 
the compact of 1788 and its amendments. 

That the sovereignty of no one of the na- 
tions was affected by the federal union Jef- 
ferson frequently contended. Gordy reports: 
" Jefferson's opinion began as follows : ' I 
consider the foundation of the Constitution 
as laid on this ground — that all powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Consti- 
tution or prohibited by it to the States are 
reserved to the States or to the people. To 
take a single step beyond the boundaries thus 
specially drawn around the powers of con- 
gress, is to take possession of a boundless 
field of power no longer susceptible of any 
definition.' " *' 

President Monroe wrote that two proposi- 
tions were beyond dispute : " The first is, that 
in wresting the power, or what is called the 
sovereignty, from the crown, it passed di- 
rectly to the people. The second, that it 

47 J. P. Gordy, A History of Political Parties in the 
United States, p. 135. 



82 The Sovereignty of the States 

passed directly to the people of each colony, 
and not to the people of all the colonies in 
the aggregate — to thirteen distinct communi- 
ties, and not to one." *^ 

In Ware vs. Hylton (3 Dallas, 224) Justice 
Chase, of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and one of the signers of the Declara- 
tion of Independence, in his opinion said: 
" I consider this a declaration, not that the 
united colonies, jointly, in a collective capac- 
ity, were independent states, &c., but that 
each of them was a sovereign and independ- 
ent state, that is, that each of them had a 
right to govern itself by its own authority 
and its own laws, without any control from 
any other power on earth." 

Judson A. Landon, referring to the Declar- 
ation of Independence, says : " The thought 
in the mind of the framers no doubt was that 
every colony was free and independent of the 
king. There was no need to say independent 
of each other; they had always been so, and 
the idea of erecting a common, central gov- 
ernment out of all, was not yet suggested." *^ 



48 Niles, Register, vol. xxii, p. 366. 

49 Judson A. Landon, The Constitutional History and 
Government of the United States, p. 59; quoted by Ewing, 
Northern Belellion and Southern Secession, p. 12. 



The Sovereignty of the States 83 

As a union is a combination that consists 
of two or more entities, either an American 
union or an American nation was formed 
when the Constitution was adopted. Bear 
this in mind, if you please, you who spell 
union with a big U, and who seem to think 
that " union " means " nation." 

Lincoln at the time of his first inaugural 
address evidently knew the meaning of " un- 
ion " as well as " nation." In his first in- 
augural address " union " appears twenty 
times, but only once was the word " nation " 
used. Three years later, in his Gettysburg 
oration, the word " union " is not mentioned, 
but the word " nation " is used five times. 
Such is the influence of power. Indeed 
should the warning of Patrick Henry be 
heeded : " If your American chief be a man 
of ambition, and abilities, how easy it is for 
him to render himself absolute ! "^^ 

Possibly no human being who has studied 
the affairs of men ever believed that a sover- 
eign entity ever willingly surrendered her 
powers. Is it thinkable that Virginia, a na- 
tion two hundred years old, with her tradi- 
tions jealously guarded by her, ever willingly 

50 Wirt, vol. 3, p. 452. 



84 The Sovereignty of the States 

laid down her life, to enter the American hell ? 
One with the intelligence of a boy of ten may 
not read the reports of the debates on the 
adoption of the Constitution of the United 
States without reaching the conclusion that 
the parties to that compact never intended to 
create a nation. 

Here I yield to the temptation to point out 
one more defect in the agreement between the 
American sovereignties. The name of the 
holding company never should have been The 
United States of America; but that name 
should have been The American States United. 
Possibly, for the benefit of the late Daniel 
Webster and many of those of his period and 
of ours, a dictionary should have been made 
a part of the treaty of 1788. Such words as 
" state " and " nation " and " union '' and 
" sovereignty " and " delegate " and " re- 
serve '' and " power " should have been de- 
fined. True, everybody knows the meaning of 
those words as ordinarily used; but as used 
in the agreement of confederation they mean 
everything — or nothing — to nationalists. 

GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TREATY OF 1788 

The domestic affairs of the American na- 



The Sovereignty of the States 85 

tions were not materially affected by the hold- 
ing company immediately after their compact 
became operative. Each natiOn went about 
her own affairs. As we have already seen, 
Virginia had a splendid military system as 
long ago as 1624. She continued to perfect 
this organisation after she became a party to 
the compact of confederation. Says Mr. Armi- 
stead Gordon, now rector of the University of 
Virginia, in his admirable Life of General 
Fitzhugh Gordon : " Each county raised a cer- 
tain number of troops, and because it was not 
convenient for men to go many miles from 
home in assembling for purposes of drill, the 
county was subdivided into military districts, 
each with its company, according to the rules 
laid down by the governor." This system 
therefore was not unlike that which came into 
being way back in 1624. 

" In 1804 the legislature chartered the Bank 
of Virginia and its branches, and this was the 
beginning of the Virginia banking system that 
by 1860 had grown and developed into the 
most perfect banking system that the world 
has ever seen." "^ 

51 William L. Royall, A History of Virginia Banks and 
Banking Prior to the Civil War, p. 9. 



86 The Sovereignty of the States 

I again refer to the rise of sectionalisin in 
Virginia. From an early part of the seven- 
teenth century there were sections within sec- 
tions, and by 1840 the differences between 
eastern Virginia and western had become 
acute. In 1840 western Virginians were 
clamouring for more liberal representation in 
the Virginian House and Senate, and by 1860 
civil war between eastern Virginia and west- 
ern was threatened. I mention this as an in- 
cident in the national development of the old 
commonwealth. Some day I shall tell you a 
great deal concerning the war that was about 
to be fought between eastern Virginia and 
western at the time the War between the 
States deprived Virginians of the joy of what 
would have been an extremely interesting 
fight. 

Nbt long did the American nations live 
peaceably under their compact. The rabble, 
greatly encouraged by the course events had 
taken, sought to make further mischief. A 
brigand never becomes a good citizen. The 
rabble, still the rabble, still highway robbers, 
would continue to prey upon society. In the 
name of humanity the rabble had overthrown 
a kingdom, that a republic might be estab- 



The Sovereignty of the States 87 

lished; in the name of humanity the rabble 
now intended to overthrow a republic, that a 
kingdom might be established. Alexander 
Hamilton, a leader of the rabble that had 
fought one king, was now the leader of the 
rabble that fought for a new king. Again 
the highwaymen were successful. The treaty 
was their work. Now for another kingdom! 

GOVERNMENT UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF 
THE UNITED STATES 

Through the kindness of Mr. Fontaine T. 
Fox, of the Louisville bar, I am able to quote 
from his valuable book, A Study in Alexander 
Eamilton, which is now in press. As the book 
is not yet in pages, I am unable to refer to 
page numbers. 

Says Mr. Fox, " Alexander Hamilton begat 
the Federal party, the Federal party begat the 
Whig party, the Whig party begat the Repub- 
lican party, and "these three parties were one 
and the same yesterday, they are one and the 
same to-day, and they will be one and the same 
for ever and for ever. Hamilton's sole object 
was to create a government outside the fed- 
eral constitution, and to-day that is the chief 
object of the Republican party. This new 



88 The Sovereignty of the States 

government was to be made out of the doctrine 
of ^implied powers.' Under the constructive 
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, which always has been merely the ex- 
ponent of Hamilton's political opinions, as it 
is to-day the exponent of those opinions, no 
restrictions limit the kind of government that 
may be established under the doctrine of im- 
plied powers. John Marshall was the judicial 
exponent of Alexander Hamilton — no more, 
no less." 

Yet time was when John Marshall was faith- 
ful to the nation that gave him birth. That 
was the time when he had not dreamed his 
dreams of empire, the time when he held that 
the states were nations. During the debate 
on the adoption of the Constitution he used 
the following words: "Can they [Congress] 
go beyond the delegated powers ? If they were 
to make a law not warranted by any of the 
powers enumerated, it would be considered by 
the judges [Supreme Court] as an infringe- 
ment of the Constitution which they are to 
guard. . . . They would declare it void." ^^ 

But, as Mr. Fox says : " The American peo- 
ples through the doctrine of implied powers 

52 Allan Bowie Magruder, John Marshall, p. 82. 



The Sovereignty of the States 89 

are living not under the federal constitution, 
but under the government of the federal su- 
preme court — a government created out of its 
own imagination, in defiance of the constitu- 
tion which the judicial oath required it to 
support and defend. And that court is to- 
day, as it never has ceased to be, the exponent 
of Alexander Hamilton's political principles, 
through John Marshall's judicial decisions, 
which have been accepted and followed as in- 
fallible." 

Jefferson was alarmed by the inroads made 
upon the rights of the nations by the supreme 
federal court. In his first inaugural address 
he said : " I deem as an essential principle 
of our government, the support of the State 
governments in their rights, as the most com- 
petent administrations for our domestic con- 
cerns and the surest bulwarks against anti- 
republican tendencies." ^^ No wonder tha,t the 
Sage of Monticello "wrote a spiteful letter 
about Marshall which made the latter angry, 
and he went home to Virginia and ran for 
Congress against the opposition of Jefferson, 
who called him ' a monarchist and an unprin- 
cipled impudent Federal bulldog.' " 

53 The Statesman's Manual, vol. i, p. 151. 



90 The Sovereignty of the States 

" Loose construction had come to mean the 
right of the federal government to do what- 
ever was forbidden by the Constitution pro- 
vided the act was deemed to be for the gen- 
eral good." ^* 

Again I quote from the admirable book by 
Mr. Fox: "How to control if not to get rid 
of this principle [the personality of man] un- 
der the federal constitution was the moral 
treason of Alexander Hamilton and John Mar- 
shall. To create a corporation under the old 
theory was an act of sovereignty, hence Hamil- 
ton advocated a bank, although he knew per- 
sonally that the power to organise a bank 
expressly had been denied to the federal gov- 
ernment. John Marshall announced that a 
charter passed by a state government was a 
contract and therefore was protected by the 
federal constitution. The next step was to de- 
cide that the federal congress had the implied 
power to create a corporation, and Marshall 
did so decide. The work was accomplished. 
The treasonable design of Alexander Hamil- 
ton and John Marshall was a judicial success, 
and the grand work of the American Revolu- 
tion was undone, and once more in defiance 

54. William MacDonald, JacJcsonian Democracy, p. 77. 



The Sovereignty of the States 91 

of God and human rights, Man was sunk to a 
subject and government with its divine right 
to reign was announced to the world. Conse- 
quently the old conflict that has surged 
through all human history — the conflict be- 
tween freedom and tyranny — ^has not yet been 
settled." 

Under the " elastic " clause of the Consti- 
tution of the United States Hamilton and 
Marshall constructed a government. Let us 
take a look at that clause, well nicknamed. 
" To make all laws which shall be necessary 
and proper for carrying into execution the 
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested 
by this constitution in the government of the 
United States, or in any department or of- 
fice therefore." ^^ Great God, that statesmen 
ever should have permitted that clause to have 
become a part of the treaty! 

The doctrine of " implied powers " was di- 
rectly denied to congress by the compact, but 
was decided by the Supreme Court of the 
United States to have been granted by im- 
plication. In effect, says the Supreme Court 
of the United States, the compact between the 

55 Art, if sec. viii, clause 18, Constitution of the United 

St.ateSf 



92 The Sovereignty of the States 

American nations makes this court a despotic 
monarch and makes a monarchy of these na- 
tions. During the session of 1820-1821 the 
Virginian House of Delegates by a majority 
of 138 protested against the assumption of 
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Cohens vs. Vir- 
ginia: 

" Resolved, That the Supreme Court of the 
United States have no rightful authority un- 
der the Constitution, to examine and correct 
the judgment for which the Commonwealth 
of Virginia has been ^ cited and admonished 
to be and appear at the Supreme Court of the 
United States,' and that the General Assem- 
bly do hereby enter their most solemn protest 
against the jurisdiction of that Court over the 
matter." 

" This pronunciamento declared the attitude 
of the Commonwealth towards what it re- 
garded as an unwarranted assumption of 
jurisdiction over a sovereign State by the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, then pre- 
sided over by Chief Justice Marshall. The 
Cohens were indicted by the State Court at 
Norfolk for a violation of the State anti-lot- 
tery statute. The defendants claimed the pro- 



The Sovereignty of the States 93 

tection of an act of Congress relating to the 
District of Columbia. Judgment went against 
them; and being without right of appeal to 
any Virginia court, they appealed directly to 
the Supreme Court of the United States." ^^ 

Too much of your time would be taken were 
I to further enlarge upon the powers that the 
Supreme Court of the United States exercised 
while trying to make a monarchy out of the 
American sovereignties. Later I shall refer 
to the court, and then I shall tell you how it 
became one of the executive departments of 
the American despot. 

THE SOUTHERN NATIONS DEFEND THEIE 
SOVEREIGNTY 

Congress neglected few opportunities to lay 
the foundation upon which was constructed 
the temple erected to despotism. Seldom did 
representatives of the southern nations mem- 
bers of Congress fail to do all in their power 
to prevent encroachment on the rights of the 
sovereignties that they represented. I shall 
not enter upon the details of the battles that 

56 Armistead C. Gordon, William Fitzhugh Gordon, 
1181-1858, p. 128. 



94 The Sovereignty of the States 

were waged in Washington. I shall merely 
mention a few of the fights. 

The position of Virginia with respect to the 
Missouri Compromise was couched in lan- 
guage that could not be mistaken. I quote 
from the resolutions adopted by her parlia- 
ment: 

" 1. That the Congress of the United States 
have no power under the Federal Constitu- 
tion to dictate to the people of the Missouri 
territory what principles shall govern them 
in the formation of their constitution or sys- 
tem of government or in the adoption of regu- 
lations respecting their property, but are sim- 
ply bound to guarantee to them (in common 
with the other States) a republican form of 
government. 

" 2. That the Congress of the United States 
are bound in good faith by the treaty of ces- 
sion of 1805 to admit the good people of the 
Missouri Territory into the Union upon equal 
terms with the existing States. 

" 3. That the General Assembly of Virginia 
will support the good people of Missouri in 
their just rights to admission into the Union, 
and will cooperate with them in resisting with 
manly fortitude any attempt which Congress 



The Sovereignty of the States 95 

may make to impose restraints or restrictions, 
as the price of their admission, not authorised 
by the great principles of the Constitution, 
and in violation of their rights, liberty and 
happiness. 

"4. That the Senators from this State in 
the Congress of the United States be in- 
structed, and the representatives requested, to 
use their best efforts in procuring the admis- 
sion of the State of Missouri into the Union, 
upon the principles contained in the forego- 
ing resolutions, and in resisting any attempt 
which shall be made in Congress to impose 
conditions upon the people of Missouri not 
warranted by the treaty of cession and the 
Constitution of the United States." " 

In a letter to Greneral William F. Gordon, 
dated January 1, 1826, Jefferson said : " It 
is but too evident that the branches of our 
foreign department of government, executive, 
judiciary, and legislative, are in combination 
to usurp the powers of the domestic branch 
also reserved to the States, and consolidate 
themselves into a single government without 
limitation of powers. I will not trouble you 
with details of the instances, which are thread- 

57 Gordon, p. 125-6. 



96 The Sovereignty of the States 

bare and unheeded. The only question is, 
what is to be done? Shall we give up the 
ship? No, by heavens^ while a hand remains 
able to keep the deck! Shall we, with the 
hot-headed Georgian, stand at once to our 
arms? Not yet, nor until the evil, the only 
greater one than separation, shall be all but 
upon us, that of living under a government of 
discretion. Between these alternatives there 
can be no hesitation." ^^ 

Congress and the Supreme Court did not 
intend to leave to the nations a single field of 
human endeavour. But without surcease Vir- 
ginia resisted the attacks that were made on 
her sovereignty. Her House of Delegates 
February 28, 1826, adopted a resolution 
couched in the following language: 

" That the Congress of the United States 
does not possess the power, under the Con- 
stitution, to adopt a general system of internal 
improvements in the States, as a national 
measure;" and ^Hhat the: appropriation by 
the Congress of the United States to construct 
roads and canals in the States is a violation of 
the Constitution." 

On March 2, 1827, the general assembly of 
Virginia adopted the following resolutions : 

58 Gordon, p. 133. 



The Sovereignty of the States 97 

" The General Assembly of Virginia, actu- 
ated as it always has been by the most sincere 
disposition for the preservation of the Union 
of these States, believing that the Union can 
only be preserved by keeping the General and 
State governments within their respective 
spheres of action as marked out by the Con- 
stitution of the United States; being also sin- 
cerely desirous that the General Government 
should be protected in the full and free exer- 
cise of all the specified powers granted to it 
by the Constitution of the United States, and 
being at the same time deeply impressed with 
a sense of its own duty to preserve unimpaired 
all the rights of the people and government of 
this State conferred upon it by the Constitu- 
tion of the State and of the United States, 
finds itself reluctantly constrained to enter 
its most solemn protest against the usurpa- 
tions of the General Government, as described 
in the Eeport of the Committee. 

"Therefore, Kesolved That the General As- 
sembly in behalf of the people and govern- 
ment of this State, does hereby most solemnly 
protest against the claim or exercise of any 
power whatever on the part of the General 
Government to make internal improvements 



98 The Sovereignty of the States 

witkin the limits and jurisdiction of the sev- 
eral States, and particularly within the limits 
of the State of Virginia — and also against the 
claim or exercise of any power whatever as- 
serting or involving a jurisdiction over any 
part of the territory within the limits of this 
State, except over the objects and in the mode 
specified in the Constitution of the United 
States. 

" Kesolved, In like manner that this Gen- 
eral Assembly does most solemnly protest 
against the claim or exercise of any power 
whatever on the part of the General Govern- 
ment to protect domestic manufactures, the 
protection of manufactures not being among 
the grants of power to the government speci- 
fied in the Constitution of the United States; 
and also against the operation of the Act of 
Congress, passed May 22d, 1824, entited 'An 
Act to amend the several acts imposing duties 
or imports,' generally called the Tariff law, 
which vary the distributions of the proceeds 
of the labor of the community in such a man- 
ner as to transfer property from one portion 
of the United States to another, and to take 
private property from the owner for the bene- 
fit of another person not rendering public serv- 



The Sovereignty of the States 99 



ice — as unconstitutional, unwise, unjust, un- 
equal and oppressive." ^^ 

The resolutions adopted by the Virginian 
House in February, 1829, show that Virgin- 
ians had nullification in mind as well as had 
South Carolinians. The latter, you will recall, 
did not pass their ordinance of nullification 
until more than two years later. I quote 
from the resolutions: 

"1. That the Constitution of the United 
States, being a federative compact between 
sovereign States in construing which no com- 
mon arbiter is known, each State has the 
right to construe the compact for itself. 

(CO*** 

"3. iThat this General Assembly of Vir- 
ginia, actuated by the desire of guarding the 
Constitution from all violation; anxious to 
preserve and perpetuate the Union, and to 
execute with fidelity the trust reposed in it 
by the people as one of the high contracting 
parties, feels itself bound to declare, and it 
hereby most solemnly declares, its deliberate 
conviction that the acts of Congress, usually 
denominated the Tariff laws, passed avowedly 
for the protection of domestic manufactures, 

59 Gordon, pp. 136-7. 



100 The Sovereignty of the States 

are not authorized by the plain construction, 
true intent, and meaning of the Constitution. 
Also, That the said acts are partial in their 
operation, impolitic, and oppressive to a large 
portion of the people of the Union, and ought 
to be repealed." ^^ 

The time was approaching when the proph- 
ecy of John Randolph of Roanoke was to be 
fulfilled. "Who," asked that excitable gen- 
tleman, " can bind posterity.? When I hear 
gentlemen talk of making a constitution for 
all time, and yet see men here that are older 
than the constitution we are about to destroy, 
— I am older myself than the present consti- 
tution; it was established when I was a boy, 
— it reminds me of the truces and peaces of 
Europe." 

About this time John C Calhoun was heard 
thundering out the rights of the nations to 
withdraw from the compact to which they 
were parties, for " in the adoption of the Fed- 
eral Constitution, the States adopting the 
same acted, severally, as free, independent, 
and sovereign States," he said. The southern 
nations had been fulfilling all the duties im- 
posed upon them by the terms of the treaty, 

60 Gordon, 129. 



The Sovereignty of the States 101 

yet the northern and the eastern nations had 
been violating its terms daily since 1789, 
when it first became effective. Their oppres- 
sions became so outrageous that the south- 
ern nations saw that they would be compelled 
to withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
amendments, for already the right to exer- 
cise many of their powers as sovereignties 
was denied to them. Long-suffering were the 
nations of the south, nor had the world be- 
fore witnessed such forbearance. Nowhere 
else, save in heaven, had such charity been 
found. 

THE NASHVILLE CONVENTION 

In June, 1850, the first session of the Nash- 
ville convention was held. I shall not enter 
upon a recital of the important work of that 
session, nor of the second session, which was 
convened in November of the same year that 
the first session was convened. I shall merely 
note the address to the peoples of the United 
States that was adopted at the first session, 
the resolutions being as follows: 

"1. Eesolved, That the territories of the 
United States belong to the people of the sev- 
eral States of this Union, as their common 



102 The Sovereignty of the States 

property; that the citizens of the several 
States have equal rights to migrate with their 
property to these territories and are equally 
entitled to the protection of the Federal Gov- 
ernment in the enjoyment of that property so 
long as the territories remain under the charge 
of that government. 

"2. Eesolved, That Congress has no power 
to exclude from the territory of the United 
States any property lawfully held in the 
States of the Union, and any acts which may 
be passed by the Congress to effect this result 
is a plain violation of the Constitution of the 
United States. 

"3. Eesolved, That it is the duty of Con- 
gress to provide governments for the territor- 
ies, since the spirit of American institutions 
forbids the maintenance of military govern- 
ments in time of peace; and as all laws here- 
tofore existing in territories once belonging 
to foreign powers which interfere with the full 
enjoyment of religion, the freedom of the 
press, the trial by jury, and all other rights of 
persons and property as secured or recognized 
in the Constitution of the United States, are 
necessarily void so soon as such territories be- 
come American territories, it is the duty of 



The Sovereignty of the States 103 

the Federal Government to make early pro- 
vision for the enactment of those laws, which 
may be expedient and necessary to secure to 
the inhabitants of and emigrants to such ter- 
ritories the full benefit of the constitutional 
rights we assert. 

"4. Resolved, That to protect property ex- 
isting in the several States of the Union, the 
people of these States invested the Federal 
Government with the powers of war and nego- 
tiation, and of sustaining armies and navies, 
and prohibited to State authorities the exer- 
cise of the same powers. They made no dis- 
crimination in the protection to be afforded 
or the description of the property to be de- 
fended, nor was it allowed to the Federal 
Government to determine what should be held 
as property. Whatever the States deal with 
as property, the Federal Government is bound 
to recognize and defend as such. Therefore it 
is the sense of this convention that all acts of 
the Federal Government which tend to dena- 
tionalize property of any description recog- 
nised in the Constitution and laws of the 
States, or that discriminate in the degree and 
efficiency of the protection to be afforded to 
it, or which weaken or destroy the title of any 



104 The Sovereignty of the States 

citizen upon American territories, are plain 
and palpable violations of the fundamental 
law under which it exists. 

" 5. Kesolvod, That the slave-holding States 
cannot and will not submit to the enactment 
by Congress of any law imposing onerous con- 
ditions or restraints upon the rights of mas- 
ters to remove with their property into the 
territories of the United States, or to any 
law making discriminations in favor of the 
proprietors of other property against them, 

" 6. Eesolved, That it is the duty of the 
Federal Government plainly to recognize and 
firmly to maintain the equal rights of the citi- 
zens of the several States in the territories 
of the United States, and to repudiate the 
power to make a discrimination between the 
proprietors of different species of property 
in the federal legislation. The fulfilment of 
this duty by the Federal Government would 
greatly tend to restore the peace of the coun- 
try, and to allay the exasperation and excite- 
ment which now exist between the different 
sections of the Union. For it is the deliber- 
ate opinion of this Convention that the tol- 
erance Congress has given to the notion that 
federal authority might be employed incident- 



The Sovereignty of the States 105 

ally and indirectly to subvert or weaken the 
institution existing in the States confessedly 
beyoDd federal jurisdiction and control, is a 
main cause of the discord which menaces the 
existence of the Union, and which has well 
nigh destroyed the efficient action of the Fed- 
eral Government itself. 

"7. Eesolved, That the performance of this 
duty is required by the fundamental law of 
the Union. The equality of the people of the 
several States composing the Union cannot 
be disturbed without disturbing the frame of 
the American institutions. This principle is 
violated in the denial to the citizens of the 
slave-holding States of power to enter into 
the territories with the property lawfully ac- 
quired in the States. The warfare against this 
right is a war upon the Constitution. The 
defenders of this right are defenders of the 
Constitution. Those who deny or impair its 
exercise are unfaithful to the Constitution; 
and if disunion follows the destruction of the 
right, they are the disunionists. 

"8. Resolved, That the performance of its 
duties, upon the principle we declare, would 
enable Congress to remove the embarrass- 
ments in which the country is now involved. 



106 The Sovereignty of the States 

The vacant territories of the United States, 
no longer regarded as prizes for sectional 
rapacity and ambition, would be gradually 
occupied by inhabitants drawn to them by 
their interests and feelings. The institutions 
fitted to them would be naturally applied by 
governments formed on American ideas, and 
approved by the deliberate choice of their 
constituents. The community would be edu- 
cated and disciplined under a republican ad- 
ministration in habits of self-government, and 
fitted for an association as a State, and to the 
enjoyment of a place in the Confederacy. A 
community so formed and organized might 
well claim admission to the Union, and none 
would dispute the validity of the claim. 

"9. Eesolved, That a recognition of this 
principle would deprive the questions between 
Texas and the United States of their sectional 
character, and would leave them for adjust- 
ment without disturbance from sectional 
prejudices and passions, upon considerations 
of magnanimity and justice. 

" 10. Resolved, That a recognition of this 
principle would infuse a spirit of conciliation 
in the discussion and adjustment of all the 
subjects of sectional dispute, which would af- 



The Sovereignty of the States 107 

ford a guarantee of an early and satisfactory 
determination. 

" 11. Eesolved, That in the event a domi- 
nant majority shall refuse to recognize the 
great constitutional rights we assert, and 
shall continue to deny the obligations of the 
Federal Government to maintain them, it is 
the sense of this convention that the terri- 
tories should be treated as property, and di- 
vided between the sections of the Union, so 
that the rights of both sections be adequately 
secured in their respective shares. That we 
are aware this course is open to grave objec- 
tions, but we are ready to acquiesce in the 
adoption of the line of 36° 30' north latitude, 
extending to the Pacific Ocean, as an extreme 
concession, upon considerations of what is 
due to the stability of our institutions. 

" 12. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this 
convention that this controversy should be 
ended, either by a recognition of the constitu- 
tional rights of the Southern people, or by an 
equitable partition of the territories. That the 
spectacle of a Confederacy of States, involved 
in quarrels over the fruits of a war in which 
the American arms were crowned with glory, 
is humiliating. That the incorporation of the 



108 The Sovereignty of the States 

Wilmot proviso, in the offer of settlement, — 
a proposition which fourteen States regard as 
disparaging and dishonorable, — is degrading 
to the country. A termination to this con- 
troversy by the disruption of the Confederacy, 
or by the abandonment of the territories to 
prevent such a result, would be a climax to 
the shame which attaches to the controversy 
which it is the paramount duty of Congress 
to avoid. 

" 13. Kesolved, That this convention will 
not conclude that Congress will adjourn with- 
out making an adjustment of this controversy ; 
and in the condition in which the convention 
finds the questions before Congress, it does 
not feel at liberty to discuss the methods suit- 
able for a resistance to measures not yet 
adopted, which might involve a dishonor to 
the Southern States." 

NORTHERNERS, EASTERNERS AND WESTERNERS 
PETITION CONGRESS TO DISSOLVE THE UNION 

Apparently disunion was at hand. Peti- 
tions to both houses of congress asking for a 
dissolution of the confederation were received 
from citizens of nearly all the nations par- 
ties to the compact. There were petitions 



The Sovereignty of the States 109 

from citizens of Pennsylvania, from citizens 
of Delaware, from citizens of Ohio, and from 
citizens of the New England nations. On 
February 1, 1850, Mr. Hale of New Hamp- 
shire presented to the Senate petitions pray- 
ing for the dissolution of the union, and 
Seward of New York and Chase of Ohio voted 
for their reception, as did Hale. The north- 
em nations had not the least desire to remain 
parties to a contract when that contract 
threatened their pockets. 

The southern nations were becoming power- 
ful commercially. In these days we hear 
many persons say that the southern nations 
had no commerce. They were among the large 
producers of manufactured articles, and their 
wealth in nearly all the industries of the time 
was prodigious. In agricultural products 
they probably led the world. They were about 
to make all their own cotton into fabrics. 
Whereupon their northern sisters said, We 
had better part. 

I shall say but little about the southern 
confederacy. But I wish to speak of a few 
of the breaches made in the rampart that was 
intended to protect the American nations — 
breaches made long before the great breach 



110 The Sovereignty of the States 

was made by the southern sovereignties. To 
please our northern friends, I shall speak of 
these breaches as being the work of rebels. 



NORTHERN, EASTERN, AND WESTERN REBELLIONS 

In 1791, soon after the treaty was made ef- 
fective, the first rebellion was fought out. The 
name " Whiskey Insurrection " was given to 
that war of generous proportions — for a war 
it was, and of magnitude conceived by few. 
The good people of Pennsylvania were the 
rebels. A tax had been levied on a commodity 
dear to the Pennsylvanian's heart — indeed, his 
head also was affected, for the commodity was 
a fluid not altogether unknown to Virginians. 
The president of the United States called out 
the federal troops, and for four years the au- 
thority of the United States was defied. Three 
counties alone of the rebel nation sent 11,000 
men to the field, and Ewing tells us that the 
"movement was not suppressed until Presi- 
dent Washington called for 75,000 troops, and 
sent Governor Lee, of Virginia, against the 
rebels." ®^ 

Mr. Ewing also tells us that there " can be 

61 E. W. R. Ewing, Northern Rebellion and Southern 
Secession, p. 30. 



The Sovereignty of the States 111 

no doubt that from 1803 to perhaps 1814 New 
England furnishes some of the boldest seces- 
sion and rebellion projects having the least 
justification which the history of our country 
affords." John Quincy Adams while presi- 
dent of the United States wrote quite an in- 
teresting letter. The epistle bears date of 
December 20, 1828, and in it he says: "It 
was ... in 1808 and 1809 that I mentioned 
the design of certain leaders of the Federal 
party to effect a dissolution of the Union and 
the establishment of a Northern confederacy. 
This design had been formed in the winter of 
1803-'04, immediately after, and as a conse- 
quence of, the acquisition of Louisiana. Its 
justifying causes to those who entertained it 
were: That the annexation of Louisiana to 
the Union transcended the constitutional 
power of the government of the United States ; 
that it formed, in fact, a new confederacy, to 
which the States united by the former com- 
pact, were not bound to adhere; that it was 
oppressive to the interests and destructive to 
the influence of the Northern section of the 
confederacy, whose right and duty it was, 
therefore, to secede from the new body politic 
and to constitute one of their own. The plan 



112 The Sovereignty of the States 

was so far matured that the proposal had 
been made to an individual to permit himself, 
at the proper time, to be placed at the head 
of the military movements which, it was fore- 
seen, would be necessary for carrying it into 
execution." ^^ 

But I was about to overlook that lovely 
rebellion, that thing of beauty, that creature 
now a fancy in New England, known as the 
Hartford Convention. During the course of 
his duty, the president of the United States 
called upon each of the nations to suppy sol- 
diers for the War of 1812. " This at once gave 
occasion for a fresh outburst of this rebellious 
spirit. Not only was it [not] confined to in- 
dividuals, but it reached as well the highest 
officials of the New England States. Massa- 
chusetts refused to obey; Connecticut refused 
to send her citizens in response to the Federal 
call; Ehode Island stood firm on her State- 
rights and asserted her sovereignty. Each de- 
fied the Federal Government, and refused to 
rally to her flag; each insisted that she was 
not bound to obey unless she felt it to the in- 
terest of the citizens of her State to do so. 
During this opposition to the United States in 

62 Henry Adams, New England Federalism, p. 52-3, 
quoted by Ewing, p. 32. 



The Sovereignty of the States 113 

the War of 1812, ^A large meeting in Boston 
declared the act [an embargo on shipping] 
arbitrary and unconstitutional, and that all 
who assisted in carrying out the law should be 
regarded as enemies of the State and as hos- 
tile to the liberties of the people.' ^The 
Government of Massachusetts refused to sub- 
mit [to the demands of Congress], and the 
authorities of the latter State passed a law 
for raising a provisional army of two thou- 
sand for ' special State defense,' of which one 
of her own citizens was made commander. 
(Am. State Papers: Misc., v. II., 186; Adams, 
New Eng,, Fed., 297.) And ever ready to 
appeal to religious convictions for support, 
the Massachusetts Legislature refused to ex- 
tend a vote of thanks to Capt. Lawrence for 
the capture of the Peacock because that 
august body said ' it was not becoming a 
moral and religious people ' to approve the 
course of the United States at that time! 

" The burdens of the war fell heavily upon 
them, yet they did not have such a love for 
the United States, as a nation, as to be will- 
ing patiently to wait the rifting of the war 
cloud ; they loudly protested that the interests 
of the people of their several States were first, 



114 The Sovereignty of the States 

paramount, — ^and second and last, the na- 
tional interests. They argued that they had 
entered the Union and had temporarily sus- 
pended their sovereign independence to facili- 
tate State success, and that they had a right 
to determine when individual State happiness 
was jeopardized.* In the Hartford Conven- 
tion, which met in 1814, Connecticut, Ehode 
Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont were 
more or less largely represented. As a result 
of their deliberations, they came forth in what 
was called the EEPOKT, in which, among 
other things, they made the following declara- 
tion: 

" ' In case of deliberate, dangerous, and pal- 
pable infractions of the Constitution, AF- 
FECTING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF A 
STATE AND THE LIBERTIES OF THE 
PEOPLE, it is not only the right, but the 
duty of such State to interpose its authority 
for protection in the manner best calculated 
to secure that end.' And they declared that 
when cases arise which jeopardize the happi- 
ness and peace of the citizens, States * must 
be their own judges and execute their own 
decisions.' " ^^ 

63Ewing, p. 33-4. 



The Sovereignty of the States 115 

I shall not trace the progress of the events 
that occurred between 1850 and 1860. But, 
in passing, let me say that the northern na- 
tions evidently believed that they could ex- 
ploit the southern nations time without end 
in the manner that they had exploited them 
in the past, provided that the union of the na- 
tions should not be dissolved. Again the 
Yankee knew what he was about. From Ap- 
pomattox to this minute the northern nations 
have fleeced the southern nations as no other 
peoples of the world ever have been sheared. 
My friends, this I say to our shame. Meek 
humility may become the crime of suicide. 
But more of this later. 



Ill 

THE AMERICAN ABSOLUTE 
MONARCHY 

FROM 1865 TO 1910 

The genesis of the southern treaty was 
similar to the genesis of the treaty made be- 
tween the American nations in 1788, which 
treaty was the result of the desire of its par- 
ties to form an alliance to protect them from 
invasion and to regulate their relations with 
one another and with other sovereignties. 
The compact of confederation that existed be- 
tween the southern peoples did not make a 
single nation of them. The southern coun- 
tries were to fight the greatest war of mod- 
ern days, — a fight to the death, that their 
sovereignty might be preserved, that they 
might continue to be an nations, — hence the 
southern confederation would have been 
peaceably dissolved upon the successful ter- 
mination of the war, although later the na- 
tion's parties to the compact of confederation 

116 



The Sovereignty of the States 117 



doubtless would have entered into a treaty 
with one another similar in its various pro- 
visions to the compact of 1788 and its amend- 
ments, which was the basis of their compact 
of union. The new treaty would have defined 
the relations of the nations to one another, 
and to other nations; but that instrument 
would not have affected the sovereignty of any 
party to the agreement. To hold that a na- 
tion was formed of the southern peoples 
would be equivalent to holding that the south- 
ern nations did not know why they were to 
fight. 

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA A 
TEMPORARY CONFEDERATION 

Never spell the southern section of this con- 
tinent that once consisted of sovereign coun- 
tries with an initial capital letter. There never 
was a " South '' in America. The Confederate 
States of America, a temporary association, 
was an agreement between sovereignties. The 
words in which that agreement was written 
never were intended to mean that sovereign- 
ties would be merged into a single nation. 

Please pardon this brief digression. I wish 
to say that the proper title of the war that 



118 The Sovereignty of the States 

was fought between 1861 and 1865 is, the 
War between the American States; or, the 
War between the American Nations. There 
was no Civil War, there was no War of the 
Kebeilion; there was no War between the 
United States of America and the Confeder- 
ate States of America; there was no War be- 
tween the North and the South ; but there was 
a war between American sovereignties, in 
which the nations were divided into two sets 
of allies. 

To show you how jealously the parties to the 
southern confederation guarded their rights, 
I will quote from the letters that passed be- 
tween the war governor of G^eorgia, Joseph E. 
Brown, and the confederation's secretary of 
war, James A. Seddon. When Georgia was 
invaded by General Sherman, Governor 
Brown raised an army to resist the invaders. 
Whereupon Secretary Seddon, in obedience to 
the instructions that he had received from 
President Davis, made requisition on the gov- 
ernor for his entire army. Here in part is 
the governor's answer to the secretary: 

" I have an organization of gallant, fearless 
men, ready to defend the State against usurpa- 
tions of power as well as invasions by the 



The Sovereignty of the States 119 

enemy. . . . Her militia liave been organized 
and called into active service under her own 
laws for her own defence, and I do not feel 
that I am authorized to destroy her military 
organization at the behest of the President, or 
to surrender to him the command of the troops 
organized and retained by her by virtue of 
her reserved power for her own defence when 
greatly needed for that purpose, and which 
are her only remaining protection against the 
encroachments of centralized power. I there- 
fore decline to comply with or fill this extraor- 
dinary requisition. . . . And if you will not 
consider the remark acrimonious, I will add 
that the people of my State, not being de- 
pendent, and never intending to be, upon that 
government for the privilege of exercising 
their natural and Constitutional rights, nor 
the Executive of the State for his official ex- 
istence, I shall on all oecasions feel at liberty 
to exercise perfect independence in the dis- 
charge of my official obligations, with no other 
restraints than those thrown around me by a 
sense of duty, and the Constitution of my 
country, and the laws of my State.'' ^* 
That great and good man Jefferson Davis, 

6* Fielder, Life and Times of Joseph E. Brown, pp. 318- 
335. 



120 The Sovereignty of the States 

who, posterity will say, belongs to that small 
band of men of which are Alexander, Caesar, 
Hannibal, and Bonaparte, — ^and I say that 
despite the opinions to the contrary of many 
persons who fought for the cause for which 
their great leader would have given his life, 
even as they offered theirs to heaven or to hell, 
— I was going to say that the war would not 
have lasted three months had Jefferson Davis 
been willing to invade the lands of sovereign 
powers. The battle that was waged in the 
soul of that great man was greater than any 
that you fought, Soldiers of the Eighth Vir- 
ginia Eegiment, or by your comrades that now 
sleep about us beneath their white " silent 
tents.'' Peace was at hand, the sovereignty of 
all the nations assured, but Jefferson Davis 
would not follow the Mississippi to her source, 
for he would have been obliged to enter the 
dominions of sovereignties. Jefferson Davis 
made a mistake; but we Virginians like men 
that make mistakes of that kind. 

VICTORS AND VANQUISHED NEVER MATE 

The irascible John Eandolph of Koanoke 
once said : " I do not recall a single instance 
of cordiality between reconciled friends." 



The Sovereignty of the States 121 

Some day those who have not read the writ- 
ings of the ^^ lunatic " of southwestern Vir- 
ginia should lay aside Shakespeare for awhile, 
then take up the writings of John Randolph 
of Eoanoke. What would the old " lunatic '' 
have said had he been told that in the days 
that were to come — these days — that the peo- 
ples of the north, hating the people of the 
south for more than three centuries, should 
profess for them a most ardent love? Has a 
victorious people ever loved the people that 
they vanquished? Has a vanquished people 
ever loved the people that vanquished them? 
Come, while we are among ourselves, let us 
admit that we hate our enemies, and also let 
us admit that we know that they are still our 
enemies. During the last past twenty years I 
have travelled in all the southern communities 
that once were nations, and I have had ex- 
cellent opportunity to study them closely; I 
was born in Virginia, received a part of my 
education there, and lived there during my 
boyhood. For the last past eighteen years I 
have lived in the city of Washington, or in 
the city of New York, and during those years 
I have travelled in the north, the east, the 
west, as well as in the south, I say, with de- 



122 The Sovereignty of the States 

liberation, that the hatred of those of the 
north toward those of the sonth is an hun- 
dredfold greater than those of the south to- 
ward those of the north. There is a reason. 
The injured never hate those that injure them 
so much as the injurers hate those that they 
injure. Yes, O Shade of the Mighty " Luna- 
tic " of Koanoke, if your spirit be about this 
battle-ground, the " cordialty " that exists be- 
tween them that live north and them that 
live south of the Potomac river is of the kind 
that would have brought from your " crazy " 
brain an immortal expression. 

The war over, — apparently over, — you, Sol- 
diers of the Eighth Virginia Regiment, when 
you laid down your arms, were told that your 
country should have all the powers of sover- 
eignty, save one : she should not be permitted 
to withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
amendments. Not long after that promise 
was made to you one of the victors, Mr. Chief 
Justice Chase, hastened to assure you that the 
disastrous ending of the war did not take 
from the southern nations their rights as 
sovereignties. In one of his great decisions — 
Texas vs. White — he said : " The Constitution 
of the United States in all its provisions; looj^s 



The Sovereignty of the States 123 

to an indestructible union of indestructible 
states." By " states " lie did not mean sec- 
tions of a single country, but lie used the 
word "states" in the sense in which it has 
been used from the time that it became a part 
of our language until a few years ago, when 
the people of this monarchy began to say that 
the meaning of " states " as it was known for 
centuries is archaic, that " states " now means 
sections of a country. Now we speak of the 
" nations " of Europe and the " states " of 
America. 

JOHN MARSHALL LEFT BUT LITTLE OF THE CON- 
STITUTION FOR OTHERS TO DESTROY 

But Mr. Chief Justice Chase was not the 
whole Supreme Court of the United States. 
As I have said, the members of the highest 
tribunal of the American monarchy were 
merely the minions of the American despot. 
From the time that the shade of Alexander 
Hamilton first hovered above the heads of 
the members of the Supreme Court of the 
United States until the time that the Amer- 
ican monarchy was firmly established, the 
opinions of the highest judicial body under 
the federal government all were designed to 



124 The Sovereignty of the States 

extend its own jurisdiction or to maintain 
its own despotic powers. The opinion of 
Mr. Chief Justice Chase was to be disreganded 
by his court. 

Probably the most outrageous of the juris- 
dictional opinions was the one in which the 
" fiction of the law " was expanded until that 
" fiction '' became this " truth " — that a cor- 
poration is a citizen of the state to whose laws 
the corporation owes its existence. The " nig- 
ner in the wood-pile " could be seen by all, of 
course. Little did the court care for that, for 
long since the Supreme Court of the United 
States was lost to shame. The object of the 
court was effected : corporations were enabled 
to remove their suits to federal courts. Thus 
the last vestige of power was stripped from 
the tribunals of the states. As I have said, 
the state tribunals became the lowest courts 
of the new monarchy. They would have been 
made so by the decision to which I have just 
referred had they not already been nisi prius 
federal courts. 

Again, in the language of Mr. Fox's admir- 
able book : 

"Before quoting from Justice Gray's most 
remarkable opinion in Millard vs. Greenman 



The Sovereignty of the States 125 



(vol. 110, U. S. R, page 421), in many points 
possibly the most remarkable ever given to the 
country by the Supreme Court of the United 
States (it goes to the very verge of pronounc- 
ing the rights of the States and their citizens 
as merely spontaneous and unmerited gifts 
of the federal government, which that govern- 
ment has the right to withhold at any time, or 
to prohibit the enjoyment and exercise thereof 
at its discretion), I quote three articles of 
the Constitution itself. . . . 'No question 
[says Justice Gray] of the scope and extent 
of the implied powers of congress under the 
Constitution can be satisfactorily discussed 
without repeating much of the reasoning of 
Chief Justice Marshall in the great judgment 
in McCullough vs. Maryland (4 Wheat, 316), 
by which the power of congress to incorporate 
a bank was demonstrated and affirmed.' Never- 
theless the Constitution does not enumerate, 
among the powers granted, that of establish- 
ing a bank or creating a corporation. Chief 
Justice Marshal], did not demonstrate — nor 
could demonstrate — that congress under the 
Constitution had the power to create a bank 
or any other corporation, for that power was 
positively refused to congress by a very large 



126 The Sovereignty of the States 

majority. . . . This statement by Justice 
Gray is a perfect illustration of the intellec- 
tual cowardice and moral slavery of the court 
to Hamilton's and to Marshall's political 
opinions . . . Mr. Justice Gray makes this 
quotation from the chief justice's opinion in 
the McCullough vs. Maryland case : ' Let the 
end be legitimate, let it be within the scope 
of the Constitution, and all means which are 
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to 
that end, which are not prohibited but con- 
sistent with the letter and spirit of the Con- 
stitution, are constitutional.' " 

John Marshall indeed left but little of the 
Constitution of the United States for others 
to destroy. If a schoolboy of any part of this 
monarchy were asked to name the most in- 
famous of all American traitors he probably 
would mention the name of Benedict Arnold, 
a New England man. If I were asked that 
question, in reply I should name John Mar- 
shall, a Virginian, than who no greater traitor 
has lived since the time of Judas Iscariot. 
There have been men who by treachery have 
destroyed several nations; but I venture to 
say that John Marshall by treachery has de- 
stroyed more nations than any other man of 



The Sovereignty of the States 127 



recorded time. Not by the armies of Sherman 
and Grant was the Constitution of the United 
States destroyed, but by the political opin- 
ions of Alexander Hamilton judicially ren- 
dered by John Marshall. 

Indeed has Patrick Henry's prophecy been 
fulfilled. Said that great statesman: "We 
drew the spirit of liberty from our British 
ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed 
over every difficulty. But indeed, sir, the 
American spirit, assisted by the ropes and 
chains of consolidation, is about to convert 
this country into a powerful and mighty em- 
pjp^>?65 Again, was he wrong on the ninth 
day of June, in 1788, when he thundered out 
this question: "Will not absolute despotism 
ensue.? " 

THE TENTACLES OF THE AMERICAN DESPOT 

All in Virginia know that Maryland^ My 
Maryland! recently has been made over — into 
one of the patriotic songs of the American 
monarchy. The pupils of the public schools 
of the nation who breathed and burned, but 
who did not come, are to be taught the new 
song. Possibly the politics of the American 

65 Wirt, p. 446. 



128 The Sovereignty of the States 

monarchy is not taught in the public schools 
of the City of Baltimore as yet. 

But in the City of New York studies in 
the politics of the American monarchy and 
studies in her patriotism now are begun in 
the kindergarten. Here is the first lesson of 
a long course in each of those studies, for this 
one lesson combines politics and patriotism. 
The lesson is entitled Our Flag. Even now 
I can see the dear little boys and girls salute 
the Stars and Stripes, and event now I can 
hear them earnestly intone this chant : " I 
pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Ee- 
public for which it stands. One nation, in- 
divisible, with liberty and justice for all." 
There are not even state lines to separate the 
communities that form the American mon- 
archy — not if the teachings of the public 
schools of the City of New York be true. 
" One nation, indivisible," — ^is the American 
monarchy whose institutions the pupils of 
New York City are taught to revere. 

Yet, no one of the communities that com- 
pose our monarchy is more jealous of her 
rights than is New York state. We recently 
read that a South Carolinian legislative body 
by a vote of one hundred to three declared 



The Sovereignty of the States 129 

that South Carolina no longer desired to re- 
sist the encroachments of the federal govern- 
ment; but no New York legislative body will 
vote to surrender to the federal government 
such powers of sovereignty as New York may 
now have left to her. There are other com- 
munities north of the Potomac that will vote 
against the proposed income tax amendment, I 
think. Few of the people of the state of New 
York know that the federal government is 
teaching their children that New York as a 
community no longer exists. Yet the des- 
pot that is now on the American throne has 
his agents in every community in this land — 
those agents by their influence controlling the 
public instruction of each community. 

Whence this great force, this organisation 
that is so powerful as to be all inclusive? 
Federal patronage, is my answer. During the 
year 1909 there were 370,065 persons on the 
federal pay roll exclusive of the new census 
force, as against 306,141 in 1907, an increase 
in two years of about 64,000 persons, or about 
twenty per cent. No federal employee would 
long retain his office if he gave expression to 
a belief entertained by him in the right of the 
communities to govern themselves in accord- 



130 The Sovereignty of the States 

anee with the terms of their compact of con- 
federation. Those minions of the despot, like 
the tentacles of some huge octopus, are every- 
where, and in the clutch of each tentacle is to 
be found a schoolteacher. The minions con- 
trol indirectly — where they do not directly 
control — well-nigh every department of gov- 
ernment of the American communities. 

The American despot may select the mem- 
bers of his Congress — and he does. He may 
" break " congressmen as well as make them 
• — and he does. He may make as well as 
" break " the officers of the federal courts — 
and he does. Indeed is the American ruler 
a despotic monarch absolutely controlling ev- 
ery department of the American government. 

A "democrat'' seeks the AMERICAN THRONE 

So far all the American monarchs have been 
Kepublicans, but the right to the throne of 
each was bitterly contested by a " Democrat " 
— ^by one who, had he been permitted to as- 
cend the throne, would have been as ruthless 
as Nero in wielding the powers of an absolute 
despotism. 

In a speech that this demagogue recently 
made in Chicago he actually contended that 



The Sovereignty of the States 131 

the larger unit has a right to control the 
smaller unit. In commenting on this speech 
The Houston Post says: 

" The proposition that the larger unit has 
a right to control the smaller unit is in con- 
flict with not only every principle of Democ- 
racy, but with the federal Constitution itself, 
and if any attempt were made to assert it the 
country might be thrown into a furor scarcely 
less intense than that which once involved 
the states in civil war. . . . The doctrine of 
centralization or the federalism of Hamilton 
never included, so far as we know, such an 
extreme assertion of the right of the majority 
to strangle the rights of minorities, either in- 
dividually or as political entities." 

Even The New York Tribune^ commenting 
on the Chicago speech and on The Houston 
Post's views, is moved to say: 

" The wlll-of-the-larger-unit theory is sound 
enough when applied to the subdivisions of 
a state which are not federated in order to 
form a limited political sovereignty. The au- 
thority of a state is paramount in every 
county, city and township within its limits. 
But the power of the nation over the state is 
not unconditional. It is strictly defined and 



132 The Bovereignty of the States 

narrowed by the terms of the federal compact, 
and it is an extravagance to say that, simply 
because a majority in Congress favors na- 
tional prohibition, laws can be passed which 
will forbid a state to sanction the manufac- 
ture or sale of liquor within its borders." 

To think, that from The New York Tribune! 
One of the important newspapers of New 
York, a newspaper that for many years has 
been immensely influential in Europe as well 
as in America, in a leading editorial article 
refers to the Constitution of the United 
States as " the federal compact," and yet a 
legislative body of South Carolina by a vote 
of one hundred to three says that the compact 
of 1788 and its amendments made a nation 
which they are now willing to have ruled by 
a despot. 

I shall again quote from The New York 
Tribune's leading editorial article of June 8, 
1910, thus: 

" For a professed disciple of Jefferson Mr. 
Bryan has advocated some curiously nation- 
alistic policies. In proposing that the federal 
government should own and operate all the 
instrumentalities of interstate commerce he 
committed himself to a startling experiment 



The Sovereignty of the States 133 

in centralization. He favored dwarfing the 
states and giving a gigantic grant of power 
to the nation. In his last suggestion he has 
gone even further. He has practically wiped 
out state lines by proposing that the will of 
a mere majority in Congress shall be compe- 
tent to determine how the states shall employ 
their police powers and manage their purely 
domestic concerns. He has become an extra- 
Hamiltonized Jeffersonian.'' 

Yet this man Bryan, who three times has 
sought to be America's despot — who still in- 
tends to become America's despot — receives 
the electoral votes of all the southern com- 
munities that once were nations, and that 
once fought that the nations might ever be 
sovereign, i^t the same time the electoral 
votes of all the other communities are cast 
for men that would be less despotic than 
Bryan. Under his leadership the southern 
communities) have said that they wish the 
American despot directly to tax their in- 
comes; they have said that they no longer 
wish to exercise any power of sovereignty. 
" Home rule? We want the rule of a despotic 
sovereign ! " they cried aloud. Virginians, to 
our shame I say, had it not been for the com- 



134 The Sovereignty of the States 

munities that as nations defeated us, this day 
our common carriers would be operated under 
the direction of a monarch, and all your af- 
fairs would be directed by an absolute power 
wielded by a single man. 

The Virginian that this man who aspires to 
be a despot claims to admire above all other 
men, held that men were not to be governed, 
that the purpose of organised society was to 
prevent men from preying upon one another. 
Nevertheless, the man that would be a despot 
at the time that he professes to be a follower 
of the Virginian that he hails as master, 
would take from all American human beings 
their natural rights as well as those acquired. 
He would form the tastes of every man and 
of every woman in this monarchy. He would 
deny to every man and to every woman every 
human right. That is the kind of ruler that 
the south wants and whom the north and the 
east and the west will not tolerate. 

The rights of those that live in the south 
must not be left wholly to the direction of 
the persons that once constituted the peo- 
ples that they fought. This man Bryan — 
no southerner — would take from the south- 
ern communities the little wealth and power 



The Sovereignty of the States 135 

that they have left to them. I thank God that 
no southern blood flows through his veins. 

THE SHAME OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Let our total destruction be brought about 
by our natural enemies, not by ourselves. This 
man Bryan, hearing that the legislators of 
South Carolina would defeat by an overwhelm- 
ing majority the proposed income tax amend- 
ment, addresses those legislators in a speech, 
■ — thus interfering in the domestic affairs of 
South Carolina, — and lo! South Carolinians 
again harken to his voice. By a vote of 
one hundred to three they agree that those 
who once were the inhabitants of a proud na- 
tion should have the last vestige of their sover- 
eignty taken from them. 

Virginians, are we also to say that we wish 
to become slaves? I hear that an attempt is 
again to be made to force Virginia to adopt 
the proposed income tax amendment. If that 
attempt succeeds, then indeed will Virginia 
have fallen from the high estate that once 
was hers. I appeal to you, Virginians, — as 
bone of your bone and blood of your blood I 
appeal to you, — do not let so infamous an 
outrage be perpetrated upon you. Drive out 



136 The Sovereignty of the States 

of this old commonwealth the false leaders of 
her people, be they Nebraskans or Virginians, 
and resume the place that you once held 
among proud nations. To-day your hearths 
are in danger — ^as they were not in danger in 
1861. To-day you are to say if your children 
and your children's children are to be slaves. 
I do not speak in mere figures of speech. A 
real slavery is threatened — a bondage of mind 
and of body. Civilisation can not endure un- 
der any government that does not recognise 
the principles of home rule, and practice those 
principles. 

Under the form of federal confederation 
that our fathers intended to 'establish, the 
human race in America would have been 
capable of its highest development. To be- 
come higher types of man the peoples of the 
world may not be amalgamated. To the con- 
trary, degeneration would certainly be the re- 
sult of amalgamation. Provincialism and 
sectionalism are necessary to a high develop- 
ment of mankind. Home rule may not be 
too elastic, but should stretch from the fam- 
ily life to the life of the nation, — ^yes, even 
to the life of the world, including all nations. 



The Sovereignty of the States 137 



THE PEACE COMMISSION 

In these days we witness the attempt^ that 
are being made in all parts of the world to 
break down the borders that separate the na- 
tions one from another and to make of the 
peoples of the world one vast nation. The 
people of the new nation are to think alike, 
they are to dress alike, and all their acts are 
to spring from one process of thought. The 
Peace Commission threatens the human race. 
War is not an unmitigated evil. But whether 
we desire perpetual peace or not, the object 
of the Peace Commission is not alone to make 
wars among nations impossible, but to 
bring about the amalgamation of all the peo- 
ples of the world. If I be mistaken, if the 
principal object that the peace commissioners 
wish to attain is not the creation of a single 
nation, to be made of all the nations of the 
earth, still, I say, the work of the Commis- 
sion may effect the amalgamation of all the 
nations of the earth ; and may reduce all men, 
by stages of degeneration, to mere barbarians. 
In the Peace Commission I see a cloud in the 
horizon that already has reached ominous 
proportions. Already I see that the first page 



138 The Sovereignty of the States 

of another federal compact, similar to that 
of 1788, has been written. 

But whether you be a federalist, or one who 
contends that the highest form of government 
is to be found where home rule prevails, you 
must admit that the way to make a nation of 
the American peoples was not through the 
methods by which this monarchy was made — 
you must admit that the peoples of the Amer- 
ican nations should have formed that mon- 
archy in the manner provided by the treaty 
of 1788 and its amendments. In that compact 
of confederation there is no clause that pro- 
vides for the compact's amendment by its 
ruthless destruction. 

The Constitution of the United States has 
been torn up by a few persons while the 
American peoples slept. Indeed, the people 
of the American monarchy are yet asleep. 
When they awake after their long slumber, as 
did Eip Van Winkle of old, they will find 
that they are slaves under a despotism more 
powerful than any other that the world has 
ever known. 

Thus, Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Eegi- 
ment, the victorious nations violated the 
terms of surrender by which you were induced 



The Sovereignty of the States 139 



to lay down your arms — ^before the ink dried 
on the paper that contained those terms. I 
shall not recall the details of the outrages 
that have been committed upon the defeated 
nations by the victors, for those details are 
indelibly written on the memory of each Vir- 
ginian — written in blood, then burned into 
memory by countless fires. So I shall not re- 
late the horrors of the War of Keconstruction 
in detail; nor shall I trace in detail the growth 
of the American monarchy; but I shall ask 
you to consider several of countless outrages 
that have been committed by the victors upon 
their defeated foes. I refer to these because 
they are existing evils, — continuing outrages, 
> — which cause me to tremble with indigna- 
tion and shame as I utter these words. 

INDEMNITY BY PENSION LAWS 

First I shall refer to the infamous pension 
laws now in force, by which laws the van- 
quished have been forced to pay to the victors 
an indemnity amounting to billions. While 
all the American sovereignties fought out a 
great war in order that a question arising un- 
der the interpretation of the treaty to which 
they were parties might be decided, yet the 



140 The Sovereignty of the States 

defeated nations in pensions alone have been 
required to pay out billions to their victors. 
Even now the defeated peoples are paying 
millions annually as indemnity in pensions. 

It is a pitiful sight as well as a shameful, to 
see those old veterans of the defeated nations 
yearly pay tribute to the men that they 
fought fifty years ago. 

The defeated nations were right in their 
contention that as sovereignties they could 
withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
amendments, for they had reserved that right 
to themselves; but the force of might made 
right, so the victors, in violation of the terms 
of surrender, seized all the right that might 
gave to them. Not only were the vanquished 
made to pay billions in pensions to those that 
they had fought, their widows and their minor 
children, but they were made to pay fully 
three times as much more in pensions to those 
that they had not fought, and their widows 
and their minor children. Every dollar of 
indemnity — save for a small amount paid to 
negroes — was spent beyond the lands of the 
defeated nations, and not one penny of all 
those enormous payments was returned to the 
defeated peoples. Moreover, unless the pen- 



The Sovereignty of the States 141 

sion laws are changed, the posterity of the 
men that fought for the southern nations will 
continue to pay pensions during the next fifty 
years or more. 

Has any victorious people other than those 
who fought against the southern countries 
ever so horribly mulitated a fallen foe? I 
contend that the peoples of the defeated na- 
tions should have received the same pension 
benefits as did the victors — from Appomattox 
to the present day. A new pension law should 
be enacted without loss of time, and that law 
should provide that the soldiers of the south- 
ern nations, their widows and their minor 
children, during the future should receive the 
same benefits as the soldiers of the northern 
nations, their widows and their minor chil- 
dren. Furthermore, the new law should pro- 
vide that the soldiers of the southern nations, 
their heirs or their assigns, should receive as 
much as the soldiers of the northern nations, 
their heirs or their assigns, have received. 
Until such a law is enacted I shall advocate 
this cause — so long as I live. 

To think of the immense amount of money 
that would be circulated in the south if such 
a law were enacted! Yet, my friends, such 



142 The Sovereignty of the States 

an immense sum divided among soutlierners 
would not make them nearly so wealthy as 
the people of the other part of this monarchy. 
Why? The devices of the victors by which 
they took the frugal earnings of the van- 
quished from them were not limited to the 
pension outrages. 

INDEMNITY BY TARIFF LAWS 

For half a century the southerner communi- 
ties have been forced to bear burdens of taxa- 
tion under a tariff more outrageous than I 
have words to describe. The industries of the 
south have been stifled, the fields of the south 
have been laid bare, — that northern industries 
might be built up. The infernal tariffs of * 
the last past fifty years have really constituted 
indirect income taxation levied upon all south- 
erners. Scornfully do the victors revile us. 
They say that we of the south are poor. But 
they do not say that they steal from us the 
little that they permit us to earn — now by 
tariff laws, now by pension laws, now by legis- 
lation so varied that for want of time such 
federal enactments may not be discussed in 
this oration. Some day a more humane tariff 
may be enacted. May Almighty God so touch 



The Sovereignty of the States 143 

the hearts of those who have held us in com- 
mercial bondage for more than a century, 
that they may have pity on us, that their 
hearts may be melted by the tears of widows 
and of orphans, and that they may cease to 
fatten on our poor bodies! Indeed have we 
suffered at their hands. 

Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Regiment, 
again I say, the war is not over. Here, on 
the battle-ground that is hallowed by the 
ashes of your fallen comrades, I again ask 
you to take up the arms that you laid down 
at Appomattox, that you fight without ceas- 
ing, until southerners again enjoy the rights 
so long denied to them. You and your chil- 
^dren must not die slaves. 



6> '^J 






» « O JkV 




. » • /v 





















*/1* 

















.^^ 



,0 






^^ • 







